Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Aberdeen Harbour," presented by Mr. Woodburn; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 190.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Transit Camps

Mr. Lisbon: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will arrange for transit camps to be provided in the Middle and Far East to enable wives to sail with their husbands when they are posted there and to live there until permanent married quarters are available.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The proposal of the hon. Member would involve the construction of a large number of transit camps overseas in view of the widely scattered areas involved. This could only be undertaken at the expense of the married quarters programme and other building work. I think the greatest service to families is achieved by concentrating our efforts on the provision of married quarters.

Mr. Lipson: Will not my right hon. and learned Friend have more regard to the point of view of the Service men and their wives; does not he agree that it is quite proper that they should desire normal family life in peace time; and will not they have to wait a very long time for the married quarters' programme to be carried out?

Mr. Henderson: I think that the best thing we can do for our married people is to provide them with quarters, not transit camps. It is because I do not want to slow down the building programme of married quarters that I think it inadvisable to start transit camps, which would require construction almost to the same extent as married quarters.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would not the best way of safeguarding family life for these men and women be to bring the men home?

Electricity Supply, Berkshire

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that no progress is being made with the provision of a main supply of electricity for Lambourn Woodlands and Woodlands St. Mary in Berkshire because of the unwillingness of his Department to assist the Southern Electricity Board in providing a supply line at reasonable cost close to Membury airfield; and if he will review the problem again so that the local residents may obtain the electricity supply promised to them.

Mr. A. Henderson: I can assure the hon. Member that the lack of provision of main supply of electricity to the two villages referred to is not due to any unwillingness on the part of my Department to assist the Southern Electricity Board. Under existing Government policy the provision of such supply is a matter entirely for the Southern Electricity Board, and I regret I have no power to make ex gratia payments in cases such as the present.

Mr. Hurd: Does the Minister really think that it is reasonable that these villagers, because they happen to live near an airfield, should be denied indefinitely a public supply of electricity at a reasonable cost, and will he carry out the suggestion in the second part of my Question and see whether some compromise can be reached with the Electricity Board?

Mr. Henderson: I am given to understand that the difficulty in this case is not by reason of the requirements of my Department that the cable should be installed underground. I understand that the hon. Gentleman himself has been informed by the chairman of the Southern


Electricity Board that even if the Air Ministry were to waive their requirements the extension could only be undertaken at a loss which the Board are not prepared to incur.

Proposed Bombing Range, Frampton Sand

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can now give an assurance that he will not interfere with the haunt of anser albifrons albifrons by establishing a range for heavy bombers at Frampton Sand on the Severn.

Mr. A. Henderson: Yes, Sir. After considering the representations which I have received about this proposal I have decided that it must be abandoned. An alternative range area in this part of the country will, however, have to be found.

Mr. Keeling: Good for the goose.

Vessel "Bridlington" (Rations)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air how the scale of rations issued to His Majesty's Royal Air Force vessel "Bridlington" compares with that issued to Royal Naval vessels.

Mr. A. Henderson: I will, with permission, circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the scale of rations issued to the "Bridlington" is equivalent to that issued to Royal Navy personnel, and, if not, would he give that information to the House?

Mr. Henderson: I have the table here, and it will be circulated, but it is quite impossible to say generally as it varies with various items of the rations. In the case of sugar, for instance, the ration for the "Bridlington" is better than that for the Royal Navy; on the other hand, in the case of meat, the issue is greater for the Royal Navy than for the "Bridlington."

Sir Wavell Wakefield: Can the Minister state why there are these differences, and why there should not be the same rations for both Services?

Mr. Henderson: I would not like to say why there are all sorts of discrepancies between the Royal Air Force, the Army and the Royal Navy.

Mr. William Teeling: What about the difference in gin and cigarettes?

Mr. Henderson: I have not included gin as a food.

Mr. Teeling: What about cigarettes?

Following is the table:

Comparison of scales of rations in H.M.R.A.F. Vessel "Bridlington" and the ceiling figures for the consumption of these foods in sea-going ships of the Royal Navy in home waters:


Rationed Item
H.M.R.A.F. V. "Bridlington" Oz.
R.N. Sea-going Ship Oz.



per week
per week


(a) Meat (Bone In)
31
39½*


Offals
—
5½


(b) Bacon
3
—


Bacon and ham
—
8


(c) Butter and margarine
16¼
9½


(d) Sugar
17¾
15


(e) Cheese
4¾
3½


(f) Tea
2¼
No maximum allowance fixed


(g) Milk, fresh
56¼ fl. oz.
No maximum allowance fixed


(h) Milk, tinned
6¼
No maximum allowance fixed


* The Naval ration of meat includes tinned meats drawn from Admiralty stocks against an equivalent consumption of fresh meat. The R.A.F. however, are permitted to obtain tinned meats in addition to the normal meat ration but within the total cash entitlement.

The above scales cover nationally rationed commodities but in addition un-rationed commodities may be purchased to bring the total daily cash entitlement for both rationed and unrationed items to 2s. 3¼d. per head for H.M.R.A.F. Vessel "Bridlington" and 2s. 3.2d. per head for messes in small H.M. ships.

Workers, Burtonwood (Transfer)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many workers employed at Burtonwood have recently been moved out to other places such as Handforth, 20 miles away; and what is the explanation for causing this trouble and transport expense to these workers.

Mr. A. Henderson: Nineteen workers have recently been moved to Handforth from the R.A.F. unit at Burtonwood


following a transfer of equipment holdings. Also workers at the United States Air Force unit at Burtonwood have been moved as a result of redundancy, one going to Handforth and 60 to other R.A.F. depots.

Mr. Piratin: Does not this redundancy arise from the fact that Americans have come over here to take these jobs? Can the Minister say when this business of moving citizens to make way for Yanks is going to cease?

Mr. Henderson: I can certainly say that it is not the case that United States nationals are coming over here to Burtonwood and taking the jobs of former Air Ministry employees.

U.S. AIR FORCE (UNITED KINGDOM)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. PLATTSMILLS:

2. To ask the Secretary of State for Air, what is now the number of United States Army Air Force personnel stationed in this country; and when they may be expected to leave.

Sir Waldron Smithers: In view of the fact that Question No. 2 has not been called, can nothing be done to stop Questions the answers to which can only be of advantage to Soviet Russia?

Mr. Speaker: I can do nothing about Questions which are in Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Overseas Services (Dollar Area)

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what steps are being taken to stimulate the development of the services mentioned in the agreement made with the United States in 1946: London-New York-San Francisco-Honolulu-Manila-Singapore; London-New York-New Orleans-Mexico City; and London-New York-Cuba-Jamaica-Panama-Colombia-Ecuador-Lima-Santiago, with a view to increasing the earning power of American dollars by our overseas airlines.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): As more capacity becomes available, British Overseas Airways Corporation plan to extend and intensify their services in the dollar area.

Mr. Cooper: Can my hon. Friend explain the reason for the delay of nearly three years in getting these services; will he say if his noble Friend is satisfied that a really active dollar-earning policy is being pursued by the Corporation, and, if not, is he considering giving any directions under his statutory powers?

Mr. Lindgren: Whether one provides a service or not depends upon the availability of suitable aircraft. These aircraft have not been available, and, now that they are coming into use, the services will be provided.

Mr. Cooper: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what steps are being taken to stimulate the development of airline services in the Caribbean and to commence operations in addition to the one service between Nassau and Miami, in order to earn United States dollars and to implement the American agreement entered into in 1946.

Mr. Lindgren: Within the limits of the capacity at present available, frequencies on the existing routes are being increased. With the introduction of the newer aircraft types with which the Corporation is being re-equipped, there will be progressive extension of services to other routes in the Caribbean area.

Mr. Beswick: Would my hon. Friend say what types of aircraft are being introduced in that area?

Mr. Lindgren: The Stratocruisers will release the Constellations for other services, and the Hermes, when it arrives, is planned to operate in that area.

B.O.A.C. (Dollar Expenditure)

Mr. Cooper: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if, in publishing the periodical statistics of civil air lines operation results, he will include information indicating not only the B.O.A.C. dollar-earning figure but also the total dollar expenditure; and, in particular, the dollar expenditure of B.O.A.C. in 1948.

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. The publication of information of this kind is a matter for the Corporation to decide in the light of commercial considerations.

Mr. Cooper: Has my hon. Friend noticed the rather one-sided approach by the Corporation in this matter, in that it publishes the figures of dollar earnings but fails to publish similar figures of capital and revenue expenditure? Will he use his influence to try to get it to publish both sets of figures so that an intelligent interest in them may be taken by the public?

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir, because they would not give a true picture, even then. Dollar expenditure would also have reference to aircraft and spares which operate on routes other than the dollar air routes.

Mr. Cooper: Will my hon. Friend urge the Corporation to publish both the dollar earnings and the expenditure as an indication of what is really happening?

Mr. Lindgren: Perhaps this is a little counter-propaganda to what has been done by other people.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In order to present a true picture and also relieve Socialist hon. Members of embarrassment, would not the best way be to hand the lines over to private enterprise?

Mr. Lindgren: They were never private enterprise under the Tory Government. In fact, the Tory Government nationalised Imperial Airways into B.O.A.C.

Mr. Molson: Is there any reason to suppose that many dollar earners are also dollar losers?

Mr. Lindgren: It all depends on what one includes in expenses. If, in fact, one excludes the capital cost of aircraft which are American, then they are dollar earning.

Communication Unit, Gatwick (Pay)

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what salaries and allowances are paid to pilots and navigators employed in his Department's communication unit at Gatwick.

Mr. Lindgren: £800 rising by annual increments of £25 to £950 per annum and £700 rising by annual increments of £25 to £900 per annum, respectively. In addition, an allowance of £100 per annum is paid to three pilots whose duties include an element of V.I.P. work, and a supervisory allowance of £150 per annum is paid to the Senior Staff Pilot.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the rates of pay which he has just given are far below those paid by the Corporations and commercial operators, and also that these aircrews are at a great disadvantage on pension rates, because the Minister of Civil Aviation, under the Act, insists on commercial firms paying a certain rate and then himself undercuts that rate?

Mr. Lindgren: The statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is fundamentally correct, and the discrepancies are now under consideration, but we note the desire to increase expenditure.

Accident, Coventry (Report)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if the inquiry into the cause of the accident between the Dakota and the Anson trainer, near Coventry, last February is now completed; and if he proposes to publish the Report.

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. The Report was published on 28th September.

Mr. Rankin: May I ask my hon. Friend if it is not within his recollection that, on the last occasion when this matter was raised, he said that he would communicate with me about it, and that his failure to do so has prompted this Question?

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION (GENOCIDE)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United Kingdom has yet signed the United Nations convention on genocide; and when it is intended that this convention shall be ratified.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): No, Sir. The


exact implications of accession, from the point of view of United Kingdom law, are being studied.

Mr. Janner: Would my right hon. Friend state whether he cannot consider this very important matter between now and United Nations Day next week, so that we might show our goodwill towards the United Nations and the adoption of this convention? This is a very horrible crime, and the convention has now been agreed to by all concerned in the United Nations.

Mr. Bevin: I will look into it, but I cannot do it between now and next week. There are Departmental views concerning the application of this law which I must study.

Mr. Wyatt: May I ask my right hon. Friend in what way United Kingdom laws conflict with the convention on race murder? I cannot think of any of our laws which permit race murder in this country.

Mr. Bevin: I think it is the application of the law in relation to our practice, but I will give an answer later.

Mr. Eden: Could not we find a word which better expresses our thought than this horrible word "genocide"?

Mr. Henry Strauss: Could the right hon. Gentleman, who is himself innocent in this matter, say who invented this horribly illiterate word "genocide," and whether the United Nations proposes to continue to use it?

Mr. Bevin: I am glad to hear someone in the House say that I am innocent of something.

ALBANIA (MINED BRITISH SHIPS)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether payment has yet been received from Albania as the result of the decision of The Hague Court in the case of His Majesty's ships mined by Albanian action in the Corfu Channel; and what action he is taking in the matter.

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to secure damages or

reparations from the Government of Albania for the mining of British ships in the Corfu Channel.

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has a statement to make about His Majesty's Government's complaint against the Albanian Government in the matter of the mined warships.

Mr. Bevin: No payment has been received, since the amount of compensation payable has not been finally fixed. The International Court of Justice by an order of 9th April, 1949, reserved for further consideration the assessment of this amount and invited, in writing, observations by the two parties. The Albanian Government in the written observations which it filed expressed the view that the Court had no jurisdiction to fix the amount of damages, although the Court had already decided that it had jurisdiction to do so. The Court have now fixed an oral hearing at The Hague on 17th November.
His Majesty's Government have followed and continue to follow the procedure prescribed by the International Court and will, of course, abide by the Court's decision, which is expected towards the end of this year.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN

Gold Transfer (Thailand and Indo-China)

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United Kingdom agreed to permission being given to Japan to pay Siam and Indo-China debts incurred during the war; and why these debts have received priority over debts due to British subjects from before the war.

Mr. Bevin: The hon. Member is doubtless referring to the impending transfer of certain quantities of gold from Japan to Thailand and Indo-China. According to the Legal Advisers of the United States Government there is no doubt that, as a matter of law, this gold is already, and has long been, owned by the Governments of France and Thailand. It is, therefore, not the case that His Majesty's Government have agreed to permission being given to Japan to make payment now to Thailand and Indo-China for debts incurred during the war. Since we had no


grounds for refuting the case as presented by the United States Government, that title to the gold had been legally transferred before the Japanese surrender, His Majesty's representative on the Far Eastern Commission was instructed not to oppose the physical transfer.

Mr. Teeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, at any rate in France, it has been at least semi-officially announced that these were the repayments of debts due—I have seen that myself—and will he assure the House that in no circumstances debts will be paid to any other country before they are paid to British subjects who have been owed this money since before the war?

Mr. Bevin: I gave a lot of thought to this before I instructed our representative on the Far Eastern Commission to agree to the physical transfer. I had the same doubts as the hon. Member, but, in the end, I thought the case was proved.

Reparations

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now make a statement about the attitude of the United Kingdom concerning reparations from Japan.

Mr. Bevin: In May of this year the United States announced that there would be no further reparations removals from Japan under the Advance Transfer Reparations Programme. This programme was based on an interim directive issued by the United States Government in accordance with the terms of reference of the Far Eastern Commission. Its termination means that Japan will pay no further reparations at any rate as long as the present régime of control continues. It does not necessarily mean that Japan will make no further reparations payments at all, since final decisions on this subject will eventually have to be embodied in the terms of the general peace settlement. But it would be misleading to hold out any hope that Japan will ever be able to pay any further substantial reparations and at the same time to pay her own way in the world.

Mr. Teeling: Are we to understand from the Minister's reply and from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has, presumably, been discussing these matters over the last few months, that Great

Britain will in no way try to demand further reparations?

Mr. Bevin: I would not say that; it has not been discussed on that basis at all. The fact is that there is an adverse balance in Japan, and the American Government are not willing to let reparations continue at this moment, and, in that, I think they have a good case.

Mr. John Paton: Is it not the case that the right of the United States Government to give interim directives refers to matters of urgency which cannot, of course, be applied to questions of this kind, and, if that is so, by what right have the United States Government taken a unilateral decision of this kind without consultation with us?

Mr. Bevin: I would like notice of that Question.

Mr. Gallacher: He cannot answer that because it would give the game away.

REPATRIATED YUGOSLAVS (SENTENCES)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received notification from the Yugoslav Government of the date on which three of the six Yugoslays forcibly repatriated to Yugoslavia for trial as war criminals from the British zone of Germany on 2nd August, 1948, were executed; and whether he has any information as to the fate of the other three.

Mr. Bevin: The Yugoslav Government have now informed His Majesty's Embassy in Belgrade that four of the six men have been executed, and that the fifth man has been sentenced to death but that his sentence has not yet been confirmed or carried out, and that the case of the sixth man, who is in prison, is still under investigation.

Mr. Stokes: Can my right hon. Friend answer the question which his Under-Secretary promised he would answer before—that is, the date on which the first three of this group were executed, how soon they were executed after being handed over, and whether they stood any trial at all?

Mr. Bevin: We have made inquiries but we have not had the answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Newspapers

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in view of the recent order issued by the Military Government in Germany, how many newspapers were found to be published in Western Germany using the names under which they were published during the Nazi era; and how many newspapers were found to have the previous Nazi editors again editing them.

Mr. Bevin: Up to the time when the Allied High Commission Press law, to which I assume my hon. Friend is referring, was promulgated on 21st September, 1949, licensing continued in the British zone, and there were therefore no newspapers of the type referred to.

Mr. Janner: Will my right hon. Friend say whether any have been published since and whether among those to be published is that horrible, pornographic paper "Der Sturmer," and is he aware that the printer of that paper has intimated that he proposes to publish it? If so, will my right hon. Friend take steps to see that that paper is not published and that even its name is not used because it stinks in the nostrils of every decent person?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot interfere in this business now; I could interfere while we held the control of the licence.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that if he had carried out his own promise to nationalise the industries in the British zone of Germany this question would not have arisen?

Mr. Bevin: I am extremely anxious to nationalise them in all Germany and so prevent them getting into the hands of the Soviet.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is it a fact that "Der Sturmer" is still being circulated in the Western zone of Germany?

Mr. Bevin: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must give me notice of that Question.

Mr. Janner: Will my right hon. Friend investigate the matter again, because I am under the impression that we still have control over the publication of these papers, and, if that is the case, will he see to it that papers of this nature are not published?

Mr. Bevin: We have overall powers of intervention, but not in every detail of everything that occurs in Germany now.

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent he retains power to control the newspapers and journals which were permitted to be republished in the Western zone of Germany, many of which are continuing the Fascist and anti-Semitic propaganda which they published formerly; and what action he is taking in this matter.

Mr. Bevin: The only powers reserved by the Western Allies over the German Press in their zones, are contained in the Allied High Commission Law on Press, Radio, Information and Entertainment, a copy of which I am having placed in the Library. This Law contains provisions enabling the High Commissioners to intervene to prevent measures being taken which threaten the freedom of the Press and to take action against newspapers printing matters which offend against the prestige and security of the Occupying Powers. No evidence of such propaganda as is mentioned in the Question has come to my notice, and the second half of the Question, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. Piratin: Arising from the last part of the answer, that no evidence has been furnished, may I ask whether it is not the case that ample evidence has been furnished by several organisations, including the Jewish Board of Deputies, who received a very sympathetic reply from the Minister's noble Friend in another place? Will the Minister further consider what can be done to prevent these outrages?

Mr. Bevin: I will look into this business of the Press, as I have already promised.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said about the connection between dismantling factories and the security of Europe, may I ask whether he does not think that the security of Europe would be better served by preventing the rise again of Nazism in Germany than by pulling down factories which can be used for peaceful purposes?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is asking for an opinion and not for information.

Factories (Dismantling)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has recently received from German trade union leaders on the question of dismantling factories that could be used for peace-time production; and what has been his reply.

Mr. Bevin: The President of the Trade Union Federation of the British zone has expressed his concern to me about the effects of the execution of the Allied dismantling programme upon employment and upon the development of the trade union movement in Germany. Similar representations have been made orally and in writing to me and to the British authorities in Germany in respect of dismantling at individual plants. The replies made to these representations have made it clear that the dismantling programme is the subject of international agreements which His Majesty's Government is in duty bound to carry out. We have, however, always been willing in consultation with our Allies to consider local adjustments of the programme designed to mitigate hardships without sacrificing the objectives to which it is directed.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Foreign Secretary agree that the time has come for the complete ending of this dismantling programme, and will he take the initiative in that direction?

Mr. Bevin: No, I do not agree until I am satisfied that security is put right. I am not satisfied yet that the rest of the world is entirely safe.

Mr. Warbey: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the execution of his settled policy on dismantling is assisted by the unilateral utterances of high officials of our Allies?

Mr. Bevin: No, it is not assisted. It is a joint agreement, and the kind of unilateral statement which the hon. Member has in mind is unsatisfactory.

Mr. Henry Usborne: Does my right hon. Friend mean that nowadays we can get security by the process of dismantling factories? Is not that idea a little ludicrous today?

Mr. Bevin: There are some factories in the world whose dismantling would make a great contribution.

Mr. Bellenger: Can the House be assured that the security consideration is the only one in this dismantling issue?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir.

Detained British Soldier (Berlin)

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received from the Soviet authorities in respect of the detention by them of Private R. Tirell, Queen's Royal Regiment; whether our representative has seen Private Tirell; and with what result.

Mr. Bevin: A satisfactory reply has not yet been received from the Soviet authorities. On 16th September, 1949, the General Officer Commanding British troops in Berlin visited the Garrison Commander of the Soviet sector and requested the immediate release of Private Tirell or alternatively that he should be allowed to send a staff officer to interview him. The Garrison Commander promised to look into this matter. In spite of a written reminder on 30th September, the Soviet authorities have not yet complied with our request. The British authorities are continuing to press energetically for the right to interview Private Tirell.

Mr. Blackburn: Is it a fact that a British subject has now been held for a long period of time by the Soviet authorities in circumstances which must cause us the greatest possible disquiet, and are there other British subjects held by them? Will my right hon. Friend personally take steps over and above the heads of the local authorities in Berlin in order to indicate that this Parliament takes a very severe view of those who maltreat British subjects in any part of the world?

Mr. Bevin: I understand that there are one or two more, but I am not certain whether or not they have gone voluntarily.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the last supplementary question, whether the time has not come to remove these representations from the purely military level in Berlin and for political representations to come from the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Bevin: Well, I seem to get the same result.

Mr. John Hynd: As the question of political asylum may be involved in such


cases, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that if the desertions are voluntary and are mainly for political purposes, whether from this side or from the other side, there will be no question of forcible return?

Mr. Bevin: If a Russian soldier comes over to our zone we do not use force to send him back; but we have always allowed a Russian officer to interview the man, and that is exactly what we on our side are asking for.

HUNGARY (BRITISH OFFICIALS)

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he will take to clear the character of British officials officially accused of taking part in the alleged plot against the Government of Hungary.

Mr. Bevin: So far as I know no British officials have been accused of taking part in the alleged plot against the Government of Hungary to which my hon. Friend refers. Though it is true that a number of British officials were mentioned by name at the trial of the supposed ringleaders, their characters do not seem to have been impugned, and it will have been obvious to anyone who has read an account of the trial that the so-called evidence bore very little, if any, relation to the facts.

CHINA (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the establishment of the People's Republic of China at Peking and the announcement by its Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Mr. Chou En Lai, that they desire to enter into diplomatic relations with other countries, His Majesty's Government have taken a decision on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bevin: His Majesty's Government have not yet reached a decision on this matter and propose to consult with other friendly governments before doing so. I am consequently not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Piratin: In view of the importance of this event and of the opportunity

for us to develop friendly relations with the new Chinese Government, will the Minister take more speedy measures than he has taken? Does he have to wait until he gets orders from Washington on this occasion?

Mr. Gallacher: This is a very important matter. Does the Minister mean that the Government of this country will consult the Government of America? Can he guarantee that the Government of America will consult this country before they make recognition?

Mr. Bevin: We are in constant consultation with all friendly Governments.

GREECE (DEATH SENTENCE)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the British representative in the Political Committee of the United Nations voted against the proposal that the United Nations intervene to stay the execution of the Greek trade union leader Georgiu Demothenes, sentenced to death by a military court in Athens.

Mr. Bevin: I am informed that no such proposal has ever been brought before the Political Committee, or any other committee of the United Nations General Assembly.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that it was reported in many newspapers that the matter was raised? In view of this reply, may I ask the Minister whether, if the matter is raised, the British representative will support such representations?

Mr. Bevin: I have answered the Question and I have nothing to add.

GERMAN STUDENTS, WILTON PARK (COST)

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what courses are now being held at Wilton Park; how the students from Germany are chosen; and what is the estimated cost of running the college to the British taxpayer.

Mr. Bevin: This year there have been five six-week courses each attended by 60 students. The courses are designed to


promote the understanding of democratic institutions and the development of a Western European outlook, and comprise a carefully balanced programme of lectures, discussions and extra-mural visits. Students are selected by the British High Commission after careful consultation with the German authorities. The annual cost is £34,300.

Mr. Turton: Will the Foreign Secretary review this expenditure? Would it not be more economical to educate these Germans in Germany rather than by transporting them here and educating them in Wilton Park?

Mr. Bevin: I think environment counts for something.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the very great value that these courses at Wilton Park have had in familiarising parties of selected Germans with the democratic political methods which are practised in this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA

Ministerial Discussions

Commander Noble: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with the Government of Malta.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): A full statement on the conversations with the Malta Government Delegation to London was issued from the Colonial Office on 1st September and appeared in the Press on 2nd September. An earlier statement had been issued on 16th August describing the attitude which His Majesty's Government had taken in face of the Malta Cabinet memorandum of 6th August, which was subsequently withdrawn by the Maltese Prime Minister, Dr. Boffa. There is little to add to the account contained in those announcements. After the second statement had been issued I had further talks with Dr. Boffa, as a result of which I wrote to him recording the position reached and inviting him to send me, after consultation with his colleagues in Malta, his further views on some of the subjects discussed. Dr. Boffa then returned to Malta but has not yet approached me again.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask whether in all these negotiations concerning the people of Malta the right hon. Gentleman will always remember that Malta did get the George Cross?

Financial Assistance

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total of the financial assistance given or allocated to Malta since the end of the European war; and how many Maltese are employed by the British Government to-day as against the figure for 1938.

Mr. Creech Jones: The total assistance granted or allocated by His Majesty's Government to Malta during this period is £22,775,000. This is in addition to a gift of £10 million made during the war towards war damage reconstruction, which increased by interest to £11 million.
As regards the second part of the Question 18,707 Maltese civilians are employed today by the United Kingdom Government in Malta as against 11,164 in 1938. These figures do not include Maltese actually in the Armed Forces or Maltese civilians employed by contractors on works on behalf of the Service Departments in Malta.

Mr. Blackburn: While I express gratification at this answer may I ask will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the very serious issue, which has been used against His Majesty's Government, that apparently Italy is receiving Marshall Aid while Malta is not receiving Marshall Aid? Would my right hon. Friend explain the position quite clearly?

Mr. Creech Jones: I would welcome a further Question on the point in regard to Marshall Aid, but I would point out that Malta does draw benefits from the agreements which have already been made under this particular system.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, in view of the mis-statements circulated in Malta, that it would be very helpful if a White Paper could be issued including everything this country has done for Malta and the actual position as regards labour?

Mr. Creech Jones: I am quite prepared to consider that suggestion, but there is already information in White Papers


which have been issued from time to time in this country. We will see what further publicity can be given.

Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that these scattered bits of information and a variety of White Papers have no effect on the public mind at all? I think the House as a whole would like the record of what has been done to be categorically stated.

COLONIAL EMPIRE (GIANT SNAIL)

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) what steps are being taken in Malaya and the Pacific area to combat the destructive effects of the giant snail, Achatina Fulica, and similar species; and what are the existing arrangements with the Governments of Australia and New Zealand for joint action;
(2) what steps are being taken to stop the spread of the giant snail, Achatina Fulica, Achatina Achabine and similar species, to those parts of the Colonial Empire where the species are unknown, in view of the great destruction caused by them; and what co-operation is taking place with the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand and the United States of America in this connection.

Mr. Creech Jones: As my statement is necessarily of some length, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

My information is that the giant snail (Achatina Fulica) and similar species are not yet a serious menace in any part of the Colonial Empire, except Hong Kong, where their numbers increased considerably during the Japanese occupation, but are now diminishing. Control by hand collection or poison bait containing "meta" aldehyde is practised.

In the Federation of Malaya and Singapore the giant snail has been a minor pest for many years. In the Federation of Malaya its numbers in any area fluctuate, and at times it may constitute an economic threat. Control by hand collection or poison-baiting has proved effective in the past, and no concerted campaign has proved necessary or is contemplated. In Sarawak the import

and export of the giant snail has been prohibited since 1931. All snails found in the colony are destroyed. Poison bait containing "meta" aldehyde has proved effective as a control. The giant snail has not yet appeared in Fiji or any of the territories of the Western Pacific High Commission. The authorities are on the watch and all necessary quarantine measures are taken.

My Department is in touch with the British Museum (Natural History) regarding the advice which should be given to Colonial Governments generally to assist them in controlling and preventing the further spread of this pest. The Museum authorities are preparing a circular, which will be brought to the notice of all Governments likely to be concerned. Co-operation with the United States of America, Australia and New Zealand has not hitherto proved necessary, but contact will be established with these Governments should the necessity arise.

MALAYA (WAR COMPENSATION)

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now indicate by what date it will be possible to complete the arrangements for the distribution of war compensation in Malaya; and whether it has yet been found possible to grant interim compensation to those suffering hardship as a result of the delay which has occurred in this respect.

Mr. Creech Jones: It is hoped that legislation to implement the War Damage Compensation Scheme will be enacted before the end of the year to enable distribution of war damage compensation to commence. For administrative reasons the local legislatures have rejected preferential treatment in cases of hardship; but arrangements are now under discussion for implementing the proposals to pay immediately the first 350 dollars of each assessed claim for compensation for loss of chattels.

Mr. Janner: Would my right hon. Friend say whether he will speed up this matter, in view of the very long delay which has taken place, and see to it that these people, who are suffering very considerable hardship in many cases, receive some kind of ethical treatment?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes. I think my hon. Friend appreciates that these difficulties do not arise at this end. They are in Malaya itself. We have done everything in our power to achieve a speedy conclusion to this matter and to get some of these payments made.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Administrative Appointments (Africans)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the increasing number of African students from Kenya now reaching university degree standard in appropriate subjects, he intends to make any African appointments to the Kenya Senior Administrative Service.

Mr. Creech Jones: In accordance with the policy which I announced in 1946, candidates in the Colonies will be considered for any appointments for which they have the necessary academic and personal qualifications on the recommendation of the local Public Service Commissions. The establishment of such a Commission is now under consideration in Kenya.

Mr. Skinnard: Where a qualified applicant has been trained and has lived some years in this country cannot he be recruited into the general Colonial Service in this country?

Mr. Creech Jones: There is no Colonial Service in this country, but obviously he can be recruited for service in the colony from which he comes.

Trades Union (Re-registration) Bill

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the new Trades Union (Re-registration) Bill, which has been introduced into the Kenya Legislative Council; and if a copy of this Bill will be made available in the Library.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Bill was enacted on 8th September, 1949. Its object is to ensure that trade unions registered before 20th April, 1948, the date on which the Trade Union and Trade Disputes (Amendment) Ordinance, 1948, came into

force, fulfil the same conditions as trade unions registered after that date. A copy of the Bill and copies of the Kenya Trade Union Ordinances of 1943 and 1948 have been placed in the library.

NYASALAND (TRANSFERRED PRISONERS)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of African dissatisfaction with the policy of sending prisoners from Nyasaland to. Southern Rhodesia to serve their sentences when their labour is urgently required for work on water conservation, road making and food production in Northern Nyasaland, which is being seriously affected by prolonged drought; and if he will reverse this policy.

Mr. Creech Jones: I understand that this arrangement was necessitated by lack of prison space in Nyasaland. It is not practicable to change this arrangement. The intention is that only long-term prisoners of a type unsuitable for employment outside gaols will be sent to Southern Rhodesia. The number away is unlikely at any time to exceed 50 and the initial number is not expected to be more than 20 out of a daily average prison population of over 800. This arangement will therefore not deprive Nyasaland of labour which could usefully be employed in the Protectorate.

Mr. Skinnard: Do we understand from that reply that the majority of the prisoners retained in Nyasaland are, in fact, being used on work of urgent public importance?

Mr. Creech Jones: Most prison labour is suitably employed on public work.

Mr. Scollan: Is this not the very thing which has been condemned by the Press and every public personage when taking place in Russia? Is it not the very thing which has now been introduced in this case?

Mr. Creech Jones: Nothing of the kind. The prison labour is employed on suitable public work and under reasonable conditions.

Mrs. Leah Manning: There is no difference.

GOLD COAST (SWOLLEN-SHOOT DISEASE)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he is taking on the conclusions reached by the International Commission on swollen-shoot disease in the Gold Coast and endorsed by the Cocoa Conference on 1st September, to the effect that the problem has not received adequate attention; that it must be tackled on a much larger scale; and that, if adequate staff cannot otherwise be provided, it should be sought overseas.

Mr. Creech Jones: An intensified campaign is under way and funds have been voted for it in the Gold Coast. Supervisory staff is being actively recruited both here and in the Gold Coast; in addition training of staff is being pressed on, and subordinate staff and labour are being organised.

Mr. Keeling: Can the Secretary of State confirm or refute the authoritative statements made at the Cocoa Conference that the number of diseased trees is growing faster than the number being cut down?

Mr. Creech Jones: It is quite true that sufficient staff has not been recruited up to date to cope with the demands which the farmers are making for cutting out, and the disease is spreading, and spreading to an alarming extent.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what exactly this staff does? Are not the farmers themselves competent to do what is required?

Mr. Creech Jones: Obviously the resistance comes from the farmers themselves and, consequently, a staff is employed to persuade the farmers to agree to this cutting-out process. In addition, the inspectors who take part in this work are also assisted by a very considerable staff of native officials.

Mr. Keeling: As the whole existence of the cocoa industry in the Gold Coast is threatened, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

GENERAL ELECTION (DATE)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement in regard to the proposed date of the General Election.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The hon. and gallant Member will no doubt have seen the statement which was issued on this matter last week. I have nothing to add to it.

Sir T. Moore: Surely the Prime Minister realises, as was recently stressed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, that the country wants and needs an immediate change of Government, which can only be secured by a General Election?

Mr. H. Strauss: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether he desires the public to believe or to disbelieve the statements publicly made on this subject by the Minister of Health?

Mr. Driberg: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will do his best to have the General Election at a time when Lord Beaverbrook is in this country and making his usual vigorous contribution to Tory policy?

Mr. Hogg: Is not the whole trouble that the Government are suffering from "giant snail" and their policy from "swollen shoot"?

Mr. Austin: Is there any truth in the report that the Prime Minister is waiting for the Opposition to formulate a policy based on something more substantial than gas and geysers?

Mr. Gallacher: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a very serious question. In view of the forecast of a very early Election by the Minister of Health, can we take it that the Foreign Secretary came back with orders from Wall Street to postpone the Election?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid the hon. Member is trying to draw a parallel with orders given by another Power to other countries—a parallel which does not exist in relations between this country and its allies.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Defence Services (Cost)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Defence if he will give an estimate of the increased cost of defence in the current year as a result of the devaluation of the pound.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Defence what is his estimate of the increased cost of the Defence Services following upon the devaluation of the pound.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): It is not yet possible to estimate the effect of the alteration of the sterling exchange rate on the cost of the Defence Services.

Mr. Swingler: Surely it is possible for the Minister to give some estimate, based on the dollar costs of overseas Forces. In view of the fact that the overseas military expenditure in the first part of this year shows almost 100 per cent. increase over last year, has the Minister taken steps to point out to the Government of the United States that this country cannot continue to carry this increasing burden?

Mr. Alexander: It is not yet possible to make a firm estimate. There are many concomitants in the make-up of a Defence Budget. Even in matters like raw materials, non-ferrous metals and the like, prices have not yet settled down.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Minister tell us what steps he is taking to help his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer by reducing Defence Estimates?

Mr. Alexander: No, Sir, not at this stage.

Mr. Eden: On this question of the calculation I think we all understand the difficulties, but may I ask—for this question is of fundamental importance to our whole national position, since this decision was taken last August by the Government—whether they are really waiting to see the price of non-ferrous metals settle down? If so, how many months or years will they have to wait?

Mr. Alexander: I referred to other concomitants in the budget besides nonferrous metals. There are others which

cannot yet be estimated. But the matter is well in hand, and it would be quite wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to assume that we had not paid attention to it. But I am not at this stage able to give a firm answer as to what the effect will be.

Mr. Eden: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he will be able to give us that figure?

Mr. Alexander: Not today, Sir.

Mr. Eden: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any estimate of when the Government will be in a position to discharge their primary duty of giving an estimate of the effect on defence costs of devaluation, which they themselves decided?

Mr. Alexander: The House will always get the information it requires at the proper time, and I can assure it now that it will get it at the proper time.

Mr. Wyatt: If it was possible for Treasury officials to work out in detailed estimates, the increase in the cost of living as a result of devaluation, why has it not been possible for my right hon. Friend's officials to work out similar estimates of the increase of the cost of the Armed Forces?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Alexander: I do not accept the interpretation in the first part of my hon. Friend's question. I am quite sure that the estimates given then of the cost of living were only for a period, not for a long term.

Major Legge-Bourke: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman cannot give the amount involved, but can we be assured that the officers and other ranks serving overseas in the dollar area will have their pay and allowances made up to what they were before devaluation?

Mrs. Manning: Money for jam.

Mr. Scollan: Are we to take it from the answers to these questions on estimates that my right hon. Friend's Department is totally unable to control the estimates, and simply has a blank cheque, and endeavours to meet the bill when it is handed in?

Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend would be quite wrong in understanding that. He


would be all wrong. I have been in public life and at this work too long to be led into these traps.

Reinforcements, Hong Kong (Cost)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Defence what has been the expenditure on the reinforcements to Hong Kong up to 30th September, 1949.

Mr. Alexander: A number of factors have to be taken into account in estimating the extra cost involved by the reinforcement of Hong Kong. Accurate evaluation is not yet possible, and I am, therefore, unable to give the information requested.

Mr. Hughes: Is not the Minister able to give us any information, even if it is general information, as to the cost of the Hong Kong expedition?

Mr. Alexander: The question is now being put on a different basis—the cost of the expedition. I should not give costs of that kind at the present time because I think that would trespass upon security.

Mr. Piratin: As the Minister is, no doubt, concerned with the unnecessary expenditure in this matter, perhaps he would urge the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to speed up recognition of the Chinese Communist Government, and, perhaps, the matter could be settled?

Mr. Alexander: It is always necessary for this country to take whatever steps are required to prevent aggression.

Mr. Swingler: If I put down a Question on this subject could the Minister tell the House what has been the cost in dollars during the past six months of maintaining troops in Hong Kong?

Mr. Alexander: I should like to see the Question on the Paper.

Electoral Register (Declaration)

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Minister of Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that Service men in each of the Services who failed to complete a fresh Service declaration on Form J before 10th June, 1949, and are consequently disfranchised at present, may still complete the Service declaration up

to 1st December, 1949, for the spring of 1950 register.

Mr. Alexander: The widest publicity has been given throughout the Services to the qualifying dates for the spring Electoral Register, which are, for Northern Ireland, 31st October, for England and Wales, 20th November, and for Scotland, 1st December. All facilities have been provided for Service men and, overseas, for their wives as well to complete the necessary declaration, and every encouragement has been given to them to do so.

Colonel Hutchison: In view of the fact that on the previous date when it was possible to register many Service men in fact did not register, and consequently at the moment are disfranchised, would the right hon. Gentleman see that the whole point is clarified this month in unit orders?

Mr. Alexander: It has already been included in all the unit routine orders, in addition to which separate broadcasts and pamphlets have been issued.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Asparagus

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether, with a view to assisting the asparagus growers throughout the country and to provide for the public, he will now consider amending the existing regulations under which it is not permissible to serve asparagus as a separate dish, in addition to the three courses.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): No, Sir, we do not want to reduce further the supplies in the shops.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister aware that home-grown asparagus is plentiful? Why continue to handicap the home producers and consumers by uncertainty about next year? Is it not really highly desirable that this malignant regulation should be abolished?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. There is ample demand for home-grown asparagus in the shops. It is quite short in the shops.

Margarine Ration (Oil)

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Food how much oil is required to maintain the present margarine ration;


how much has been received by his Department so far from the East African groundnut scheme; and how much he expects to receive by the end of the year.

Mr. Strachey: The present margarine ration and caterers' allowances take about 6,500 tons of oil a week. The Overseas Food Corporation expect to ship the equivalent of 550 tons of oil from East Africa by the end of the year. Oilseeds representing about 235 tons of oil have already arrived.

Captain Crookshank: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that in the last Debate he did say that there would be several thousand tons sent to this country this year? What has happened that the amount has now dwindled to 550?

Mr. Strachey: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is now confusing tons of oil and tons of seed from which the oil is extracted.

Mr. York: Is it the policy of the Corporation or of the Department to ship the seeds over here, or is it now the policy to ship the oil only?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, the seed.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether during last cropping season as many groundnuts were taken out of the soil as were put into it?

Mr. Strachey: As many groundnuts taken out of the soil this year as there were put into it? Oh, yes.

Cheeses (Imports and Exports)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food the values of the fancy cheeses imported from dollar and non-dollar sources in the six months ended 30th September; and the values of the Stilton and other cheeses made in the United Kingdom which were exported during this period to dollar and non-dollar countries.

Mr. Strachey: Some £3 million worth of non-ration cheeses—which is, I take it, what the hon. Member has in mind—all from Europe, was imported during the six months ended 30th September, 1949. No cheeses of this kind were imported from dollar sources. The only commercial exports of home-produced cheese licensed during this period were £3,800 worth of Stilton, all for dollar destinations.

Fruit Canning (Sugar)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the loss of food to the consumers during August and September this year as a result of the canners being unable to get adequate supplies of sugar for the canning of plums; whether steps will be taken to improve this position; and, in view of the potential world surplus of sugar, what steps are being taken to ensure supplies from non-dollar sources.

Mr. Strachey: The canning industry as a whole has had approximately the same quantity of sugar for canning plums as last year, when there was a record pack, and we cannot spare any more. We already buy all the sugar available from non-dollar sources; there is, unfortunately, no surplus whatever of non-dollar sugar.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Worcestershire canners were prevented from making full use of the fruit available by the shortage of sugar? Surely this is wasting home produced fruit? May I draw attention to the fact that this is thoroughly unsatisfactory?

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that, when there is a shortage of sugar in the canning factories, he does not, as compensation, offer the canners an export licence for the soft fruit which has never been exported before?

Mr. Strachey: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member would put down a Question on that point.

Gift Parcels (Postmark)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Food why the words "Britain says 'thank you for food gifts'" are stamped by his Department on letters sent to addresses in Italy.

Mr. Strachey: During the month of August some letters going out from Great Britain were franked with the words "Britain says 'Thank You for Food Gifts.'" This was one of the means adopted to convey the thanks of the nation to our friends in countries all over the world, for the 70 million food parcels and other gifts of food they have sent to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it the view of the right hon. Gentleman that in order to do this it is necessary to appear to beg for presents from our defeated enemies, and if that cannot be avoided under his system would it not be less humiliating to British subjects not to beg at all?

Mr. Strachey: I cannot agree that to say "Thank you" for something is to beg for something.

Mr. Molson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this stamp has also been used on all letters going to Germany, and does not he consider it extremely undesirable that a thing of this kind should be put on letters going to Germany? Is he aware that there have already been a number of protests on the subject? I have made them to the Postmaster-General, as it would appear that the responsibility for this extremely tactless action rests with his Department.

Mr. Strachey: I cannot say whether it is possible to discriminate between the countries of destination. It may have been difficult to do so, but certainly the vast majority of these letters went to the countries from which the vast majority of the parcels came.

Mr. Eden: Surely it must be possible to discriminate between Australia and New Zealand, who have sent us gifts, and the defeated countries, who are not in a position to do so? Will the right hon. Gentleman look further into the matter, and if it is not possible to discriminate, would it not be better to drop this thing altogether?

Mr. Strachey: On the discrimination point, that is a matter for the postal service.

Mr. Berry: Has not the right hon. Gentleman heard that gratitude has sometimes been interpreted as a lively sense of favours to come?

Mr. Molson: Is the Minister of Food aware that when I took this matter up with the Postmaster-General he said that the responsibility rested with the Ministry of Food?

Mr. Strachey: The responsibility for putting the words "Britain says 'Thank You for food gifts'" certainly rests with the Food Ministry, but I have been asked

whether it was possible to discriminate between the destinations of the letters, and that is surely a matter for my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Beswick: Is this practice still being continued?

Mr. Strachey: I should like to have notice of that question.

Commander Noble: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this point as to which countries this stamp should be sent was discussed when the matter first came up?

Mr. Strachey: Letters were sent out during the month of August, and I understand that it proved impossible to discriminate between the countries to which they were sent.

Mr. Stokes: I am a little puzzled. Am I to understand that, if the Postmaster-General refuses to put this stamp on, it is all right, and his Department cannot make the Postmaster-General do so?

Mr. Strachey: I am somewhat puzzled by that question. The stamp was put on the letters at our request. We are now being asked whether it is possible to discriminate between the destinations of the letters.

Major Guy Lloyd: Is it not a fact that if this Government go on much longer we shall be thankful to get food parcels from anywhere?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman's recent answer to a supplementary question mean that when he asked the Postmaster-General to stick this stamp on outgoing mail he did not bother to ask him whether it was possible to discriminate between the countries which have helped us so generously and the countries we defeated in the war?

Mr. Strachey: As a matter of fact, certain food parcels have come from Italy and it would be rather difficult to exclude Italy.

Mrs. Manning: is not my right hon. Friend now aware that the sense of this House is that it is nauseating to have such inscriptions on letters, and will he, from now on, exclude them, as our friends realise that we are indeed grateful for the help which we get.

Mr. Strachey: I do not think that there is anything nauseating about thanking the countries of the world. I am far from agreeing with my hon. Friend that there is anything nauseating about thanking the countries of the world, predominantly the Commonwealth and the United States, who have sent us 70 million food parcels.

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Prime Minister as a former Postmaster-General, whether it is technically impossible to send these things to one country and not to another, and would it not be better to drop this whole plan, which is disgusting in the view of the whole House?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know if I am interrupting the right hon. Gentleman if he desires to answer, but if no answer is forthcoming that makes it inevitable that I must give notice to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 126.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments to the Schedule, page 22, line 9, and the Schedule, page 23, page 8, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Bevan, and in respect of the Amendment to the Schedule, page 26, line 21, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Woodburn."—[Mr. Aneurin Bevan.]

3.47 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Motion, at the end to add:
and in respect of the Amendments to the Schedule, page 22, line 4, and to the Schedule, page 26, line 16, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Lieut.-Colonel Elliot.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) has a manuscript Amendment, which I trust Mr. Speaker will allow him to move, in view of the fact that this Motion is newly on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: I think it would be better if the hon. Member moved his manuscript Amendment later on. I must first put to the House the Amendment moved by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I think it is very unusual that there should be a manuscript Amendment at this stage. I am prepared to accept the Amendment moved by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but without prejudice to my attitude on the manuscript Amendment. Of course, it is a matter for the Chair whether it accepts a manuscript Amendment in such circumstances, but it is a little hard for me, not having seen the manuscript Amendment, to be asked to accept that a manuscript Amendment may now be moved.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is only in order to allow a Clause with regard to the cost of conveyance of certain persons under Section 27 of the Act to be discussed. If the Minister will look at it, he will see that it raises the question of some charge falling upon certain local authorities. As he knows, it is impossible to impose a charge upon local

authorities upon the Report stage. There is no reason to suppose that we shall be in any way delayed in dealing with the Measure, and I trust very much that with expedition and a certain amount of accommodation on both sides we shall be able rapidly to dispose of this business.

Mr. Bevan: I understand there is some misunderstanding here. It is not, in fact, a manuscript Amendment at all; it is merely proposed to bring forward during this stage a new Clause with respect to the cost of conveyance. I am myself not able to understand why it is being brought forward; nevertheless, it has been brought forward, I understand, by the House authorities, and I am prepared to accept it. I accept the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If I may say so, the manuscript Amendment is a proposed Amendment to the Minister's Motion on recommittal, not a manuscript Amendment dealing with anything in the Bill; it is merely in order to bring the Clause within the scope of the Debate.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Linstead: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Motion at the end, to add:
and in respect of the Clause (Cost of conveyance of certain persons under Section twenty-seven of Act), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Basil Nield.
I move this manuscript Amendment on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chester (Mr. Nield), who has been advised that it is technically necessary for the new Clause standing in his name to be recommitted, because it imposes a certain charge. For that reason, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I move this manuscript Amendment.

Mr. Howard: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Bevan: I should like to ask for your guidance here, Mr. Speaker. The Amendment which has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman I am prepared to accept. The manuscript Amendment has the effect of transferring to the Committee stage from the Report stage the Clause to which reference has been made. It is being moved, as I understand it, because the hon. Member has been told there are technical reasons why this


should be re-committed. I do not know what the technical reasons are, because this does not impose a charge but merely transfers a charge from one local authority to another. It is perfectly true that this is a grant-aided matter, but nevertheless the cost which one local authority pays, another local authority does not pay

Mr. Speaker: The fact that a local authority pays an additional charge takes the matter out of the Report stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to the Schedule, page 22, line 9, and the Schedule, page 23, line 8, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Bevan, and in respect of the Amendment to the Schedule, page 26, line 21, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Woodburn; in respect of the Amendments to the Schedule, page 22, line 4, and to the Schedule, page 26, line 16, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Elliot; and in respect of the Clause (Cost of conveyance of certain persons under section twenty-seven of Act), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Basil Nield.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

New Clause.—(COST OF CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN PERSONS UNDER SECTION TWENTY-SEVEN OF ACT.)

Where a person has travelled from a place in the area of one local health authority to a hospital in the area of another local health authority for the purpose of attending at, or being accommodated in, that hospital in order to avail himself of any hospital or specialist services and, immediately after such attendance or on the termination of the period of his accommodation in the hospital (not being a period longer than three months beginning with the date of his admission to the hospital), he is conveyed by ambulance or other means of transport made available by the local health authority for the area in which the hospital is situated in pursuance of their duty under section twenty-seven of the Act of 1946 from that hospital to the place from which he travelled as aforesaid or to any other place in the area of the local health authority within which the first-mentioned place is situated, the cost of that conveyance shall be repaid by the last-mentioned authority to the local health authority by whom the ambulance or other means of transport was made available as aforesaid:

Provided that any local health authority may agree to waive their rights under this section against any other local health authority, either in consideration of a periodical payment or without consideration.—[Mr. Linstead.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Linstead: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The parent Act imposes upon the local health authorities responsibility for the ambulance service and leaves at large the question of the charges for that service. It works on the basis that the local authority for the place where the patient's home is situated has the responsibility for the conveyance of the patient from the home to the hospital, and the local authority where the hospital is situated has the responsibility of providing the conveyance for the patient from the hospital back to his home. No provision was made for inter-authority accounting in the general expectation that swings and roundabouts would operate; that over a period of time the cost would even itself out as between one local authority and another. In fact, it has been found from experience that this has not been the case.
Generally speaking, the hospitals are situated in the areas of county boroughs which serve the surrounding counties, with the result that the general flow of patients has been from the counties into the county boroughs. The county boroughs are finding that they have to provide transport back to the homes of a large number of patients who are not residents of the county borough but of the county. There is, therefore, very little reciprocal flow in the other direction of borough residents out into the counties. In these circumstances, both the associations of the county councils and of the municipal corporations have considered the matter and come to the conclusion that there is a sufficient lack of balance as between one local authority and another to make it worth while introducing a system of inter-authority accounting, and the proposals which commend themselves to the local authorities are those contained in this Clause.
The only matter to which I might draw attention is the phrase in brackets—
not being a period longer than three months beginning with the date of his admission to the hospital.
It has been agreed between the authorities that after such a period it is not


unreasonable to regard the patient as the responsibility of the authority within whose area he remains. In a large number of cases it will be a patient at a sanatorium, who will, of course, be a long-term patient.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member has pointed out that this matter has been discussed between the representatives of the various local authorities and that they have reached agreement between themselves that some local authorities believe they are suffering under the present arrangement and will be able to have relief in this way. Whether the amount of relief will be as much as some of them think will rest on actual practice, but in the circumstances, as this is a matter for the local authorities and they have reached agreement, I see no reason at all for standing in the way and I accept the Clause.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule.—(MINOR AMENDMENTS OF THE ACT OF 1946 AND 1947.)

Mr. Howard: I beg to move, in page 22, line 4, at the end, to insert:
In subsection (1) of section five (which provides for accommodation for private patients) after the words 'the whole cost,' the words 'or such proportion of the cost as may be determined,' shall be inserted.
It will be within the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman that when the Lord Advocate moved the Second Reading of this Bill he explained that there were three main purposes for it. The first was to deal with partnerships, the second with promises which have to be implemented, and the third—
to make certain minor administrative changes which experience has shown are desirable for the smooth working of the machine. The Bill is essentially a minor Measure which embodies no change of principle or policy. It makes no fundamental alterations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1949; Vol. 465, c. 1066.]
This is an Amendment in the spirit of the third purpose as laid down by the Lord Advocate. It seeks to introduce a measure of flexibility into a section of the existing Act which is somewhat rigid, and which experience has shown is creating and has created difficulties of interpretation and administration and anomalies which tend to a feeling of injustice or

unfairness on the part of some of the people affected. It has been at least a partial failure in achieving the object the House had in mind when it inserted the provision.
The Section in question is Section 5 of the principal Act, which gives power to the Minister to permit the continued use of accommodation which was at the time in existence and had been specially provided for fee-paying patients to be treated by their own doctors. It was accommodation already provided, and the provision was to enable this accommodation still to be used in hospitals which had now become public hospitals.
It is important that the Committee should appreciate quite clearly the difference between Section 5 and Section 4. Section 4 makes it possible to provide small wards or special rooms for cases requiring special medical treatment, or for those prepared to pay a little extra for additional comfort and amenities. By Section 4 a patient is required to pay only that portion of the cost attributable to the extra amenities he is considered to be getting and he does not have the right of attendance by his own doctor; he has to be attended by the doctor who is provided as part of the service. By Section 5 the patient is required to pay the whole cost and does not get the benefit of having his contributions to the National Health Service credited to him, although he does have the privilege of being attended by a doctor of his own choice. It is important that we should bear that clearly in mind.
4.0 p.m.
It is not necessary for me to argue in favour of the principle embodied in Section 5 because the Minister himself commended it to the House when dealing with the Bill on Second Reading. He made it clear that he appreciated that there were a number of people who had doubts as to the theoretical wisdom of making this provision at all. But he also made it clear that there were at least three practical reasons why it was desirable that this provision should be made. Perhaps I may quote from what the Minister said on the Second Reading of the 1946 Act:
We are driven inevitably to this fact, that unless we permit some fee-paying in the public hospitals there will be a rash of nursing homes all over the country. If people wish to pay for additional amenities, for something to


which they attach value, like privacy in a single ward, we ought to aim at providing such facilities for everyone who wants them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1946; Vol. 422, c. 57.]
I entirely agree, but it is because that purpose is not being wholly met that I have moved this Amendment. The Minister gave two other reasons why it was important that this principle should be adopted. The first was that there were certain disadvantages in guiding patients towards nursing homes. There are good nursing homes, but there are quite a number which are not so good, and there is no doubt whatever that there can be few, if any, nursing homes where there will be available to the patient the same facilities as will be available in a good general or special hospital.
The second reason which the Minister put forward, and about which there can be no dispute, was that there would be economy on the demands of the services of the specialists concerned in that if it were possible for them to treat private patients in the public service hospital where they were doing their other work, they would be able to devote more of their time to public service work. In paraphrasing the Minister's remarks I hope I have not done them any injustice. When, in 1946, Parliament provided that the whole cost of these beds should be met by the persons using them, it may have seemed a perfectly proper provision but, unfortunately, as all who are connected with hospital services know, since 1946 costs have rocketed. I need not go into the reasons why they have rocketed, but in a large measure they are due to other provisions in the National Health Service Act.
Although costs have rocketed, however, the incomes of people who might have been able to avail themselves of these services have not rocketed. I should not like to say what would be the right word to describe what has happened to their incomes, but there is clear evidence—I do not put it higher; it is not wholly conclusive—that some of the facilities are not in fact available owing to the cost to the people who desire to use them.
The operative instrument for putting into effect this Section of the Act was a statutory instrument which was issued by the Minister in 1948, No. 1490, I think it

was. It had to be put forward coterminously with the coming into force of the Act on the appointed day, and as a result it was only laid on the Table on 1st July and came into operation on 5th July. It was quite impossible for Parliament to enter into any proper discussion of that instrument. I am not denying that before it was drafted there were many consultations and that the Ministry took advice, but its exact effects could not have been known to Parliament at the time. Broadly speaking, that statutory instrument dealt with the very difficult question of determining what items should be included and what should be excluded in arriving at costs.
By a very masterly use of words—and I hope this is not an unfair description of it—it laid down that there should be standard daily charges which could be calculated in one of two ways: the first was that where there was data available for calculating those charges that data should be used; and the second was that where no such data was available the cost should be calculated on the cost of the ordinary public bed, to which had to be added an arbitrary and fixed percentage to arrive at the assumed cost of the private bed.
I have not heard of any great difficulties arising in hospitals where the full data was in existence. There have been some complaints, but they have been comparatively few, and it may well be that in some cases the actual charges being made are on the low side. But in other cases, where there is no appropriate data and the assumed yardstick has to be used, there have been great difficulties and the results have shown that there will be very considerable overcharges. The reason why this yardstick must be unsatisfactory is because of the vast variety of hospitals and the enormous difference in the nature of the services they provide.
May I give two examples of the sort of anomalies which must arise? It will be quite clear that if there is a hospital where buildings are widely dispersed, or where they are rather old and are perhaps not in accordance with modern ideas, there is at least the likelihood that the costs of running that hospital will be greater than they will be in a more recently planned modern hospital. It is also clear that the actual value of the accommodation in the new and


modernly planned hospital should be, and usually is, much better than that in an old hospital. But the costs will be greater in the old hospital, and the unfortunate patient will have to pay more for less good accommodation. That will apply whether there is existing data available for making calculations or not.
The second example I want to put will only apply in the latter case. I could take the Minister to a hospital not 100 miles away from here where he could see it actually in being. On one side of the building, which is apportioned to the use of private patients, there is a busy thoroughfare with a tramway junction. Even those members of the Committee who have been in the habit of trying to sleep over a tramway junction will know exactly how difficult that is. The other side of the building, apart from war damage which has not yet been cleared up, looks over a quiet, peaceful, green garden. It is obvious that the value to the occupants of the two rooms, one on a noisy road and the other overlooking a quiet garden, will be quite different; yet the cost of running those two rooms will be exactly the same. Under this statutory instrument, the hospital concerned will be bound to make the same charge for these two quite different types of accommodation.
The result of this is that some of the hospitals are feeling that they have to collect charges which they really do not feel justified in asking, and some of the payments which the patients are being asked to make bear very little relation to the real value of the facilities which those patients are getting. The main criticism is in part obvious. The intentions of Parliament are not being entirely fulfilled, and this Amendment will enable the Minister to do what he cannot do now. The supplemental point is that it is contended that overcharges are arising because these patients are, in fact, being required to pay twice over for some of the services which they are obtaining. This arises because, although they are patients in public service hospitals, they receive no credit whatever for the contributions which they themselves make towards the provision of the public service.
May I put it in this way? I am quite prepared to buy a 2½d. stamp at the Post

Office counter, although I would rather have a penny one, in order that at some future time I may post a letter. If, having written my letter, I took it to the post and found that before I actually put it into the letter box I had to pay another 2½d., I would feel that I was being done. That is exactly the feeling which these patients have, and which in a large measure is justified. I do not believe that anyone should be given special favours or amenities without being required to pay for them, but I believe that when assessing the amount that should be paid regard should be paid to and credit given for whatever payment has already been made.
4.15 p.m.
The effect of this Amendment strengthens and fortifies the Minister in implementing the declared objects of Parliament, objects which he himself commended to the House when he was piloting the Bill through. This Amendment will not compel him to do anything to which so far as I know he personally objects, but it will enable him to do what at present he is prevented from doing by the actual wording of the Act.
Finally, it will improve the whole services which are available to the public by meeting that portion of the public demand which is not being wholly met today, and by encouraging a portion of the public to make payment to the public hospital services where they will get the best medical treatment, instead of diverting them to other forms of hospital or nursing homes where they may get treatment which is not as good. It will also be of benefit perhaps in the most important way of all, in economising the demands on the time and energy of some of our consultants and specialists, for whose skill there is a demand today, which is far greater than it is in their personal power to supply. I commend this Amendment to the House and I hope the Minister will accept it.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member for St. George's, Westminster (Mr. Howard) has moved this Amendment in moderate terms, and has argued it with considerable cogency. Nevertheless, my hon. Friends and I on this side of the Committee are still unconvinced of the necessity or the justice of doing what he has suggested. In the first place, there is no evidence that the existing situation is


resulting in an increase in the demand upon private nursing homes. It has been said that that is the case, but there is no evidence that it is so. I confess at once that if it were the case that a very substantial number of patients were being diverted from the great general hospitals to the private nursing homes, it would be a tendency that it would be desirable to check, for it would be conflicting with the principles that he read out from the Second Reading speech which I made to the House. However, until that condition is proved, it does not seem to me at this stage that any case has been made out for accepting the Amendment.
On the contrary, it might give rise to resentment in other quarters. Hon. Members will remember that when the National Health Services scheme was being shaped, a great many of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee took exception to benefits to different classes of patients in the public service hospitals. They always felt there was a danger that if there were some patients who were paying patients as against those who were free, there would be a tendency to discrimination inside the service itself and create a two tier system of treatment. Whilst admitting that there might be some danger of that, I myself nevertheless believed that by administrative action we could prevent not only discrimination but a sense of discrimination, and I still believe that is true. It is of course a fact that there is a hangover from the past and that certain habits of mind will take some time to eliminate. Nevertheless, I believe the tendencies are all in a healthy direction and that before very many years are over there will not be any sense of discrimination or unfairness in the hospital administration.
The hon. Member is surely at fault when he says that injustice is being done. The persons who are taking advantage of Section 5 are doing so by their own election. He says that it is unfair that they should be charged twice, but it is not we who are the cause of that but they themselves. They make their contribution through the taxes to the National Health Service and then they elect to go outside the service. They are provided with a public service but they go outside the free service. It is only by physical association that it can be said to be outside the

public service. It is outside the free public health service. I know this has been argued again and again. It cannot be said that injustice has been done to people in those circumstances, because the free Health Service is available to them. If they like to go outside the free service that is a matter of their own choice.

Mr. Sparks: Would my right hon. Friend have regard to the fact that there is great delay in some hospitals in the patients securing immediate treatment, and that therefore some patients elect to be treated privately because they can get into hospital much more quickly in that way?

Mr. Bevan: The answer is that that always was the case, even more so than today. In any case, I should be very unhappy to learn that anybody had been able to pay his way into hospital ahead of another patient who could not afford to do the same.

Mr. Harrison: It is done regularly.

Mr. Bevan: I am unhappy to hear about it. If my hon. Friends would give me particulars I should like to know more about it. It is understood that patients are admitted to hospital primarily on grounds of medical urgency. Cases might arise, I admit, of two patients in the same degree of medical urgency, one able to go into the private, paid-bed block, because a bed would be there, and the other unable to do so. I admit that that might happen, but what my hon. Friends have said is no argument for accepting the Amendment. It merely means that we must go ahead and provide additional hospital accommodation. When it is available these anomalies will disappear.
On the point whether an injustice is being done to the private patient, it seems to me that an injustice would be done to the Health Service as a whole if we charged a private patient less than it costs to maintain him. Why should the public service subsidise the person who has elected to be a private patient? If it can be made out in principle that there should be a subsidy at all, what should be the proportion of subsidy? If I admitted that there should be any subsidy at all from the public to private patients, no matter how small that subsidy, it would then be


argued that I had conceded the principle itself. Then, if by some unhappy chance an Administration of a different political character took our places here, the charge to the private patient might be reduced still further on the ground that we had already admitted that the private patient ought not to pay the full charge. Surely the fair principle is that if a person has elected to go into the private, pay-bed block, he should pay the full charge.
Where the individual concerned is anxious to obtain privacy as an additional amenity, he may be able to do so. As the hon. Member opposite knows, such amenity beds are being increased. All over the country it is becoming easier for persons to purchase privacy. It always seemed to me to be reasonable, until we can provide perfect conditions for everybody, that persons who want privacy in hospital should be able to obtain it. They get the rest of the service free, but they pay for the additional amenity of privacy.

Mr. Howard: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that in those cases they are not likely to have the benefit of the doctor of their choice?

Mr. Bevan: I said that they are paying only for the amenity in such a case. The hospital staffs are available to them. I think it will be discovered before very long by most people that when they pay for the separate specialist of their choice they are having exactly the same one as they would have had in the free ward, and that therefore they are paying for something which they are not in fact enjoying.
I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will realise that their Amendment would have the effect of increasing the cost of the National Health Service. I am continually being criticised about the cost of the service, but almost every time an Amendment is moved from the other side it is a proposal to increase that cost. Hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways. The present practice is one of the ways in which administrative cost is kept down.

Mr. Linstead: I should like to put two considerations to the Minister which have not so far arisen in the speeches made to the Committee on this point. I agree with him that it is as well that we

should try to keep the discussion of this subject on the basis of the Health Service rather than on a political basis. I think also we can say that there has been no misuse of the provisions of Section 5 in regard to paying for accommodation in hospital. Taking the hospital service as a whole, I am certain that medical priority determines whether beds are given to any particular patient or not. It is only when that principle has been satisfied that the paying patient can have any advantage.
The two points that I would put to the Minister are these. One of the principles of the service has been the free choice of the doctor by the patient. On the whole, that principle operates fairly in the general practitioner service. Once every six months, I think it is, a dissatisfied patient has the opportunity to change his doctor. Free choice of doctor does not operate in relation to hospital specialist services, except under a very heavy penalty. The only way to get a specialist of our choice in hospital is by becoming a Section 5 patient and paying the full cost of the bed into which we go.

Mr. Harrison: And the specialist's fee.

Mr. Linstead: Yes; on top of that you pay the specialist's fee.

Dr. Haden Guest: Is the hon. Member suggesting that free choice of specialist existed before the Health Service came into operation? It was most uncommon for a patient to know anything about the specialist, except in a very small proportion of cases.

Mr. Linstead: I would go a very long way with the hon. Gentleman, but would add that the free choice of specialist was in that the general practitioner made his recommendation to the patient by saying, "You ought to see so-and-so." In the majority of cases the patient accepted that advice. That situation has completely disappeared now. When the patient goes into hospital he has either to accept the specialist who goes with the bed or to take the specialist chosen by himself or recommended by his general practitioner, in which case the only way is by paying the full cost.


The principle of free choice of doctor is being greatly violated by the conditions tied to certain Section 5 beds, but they are laid down in the Act.
4.30 p.m.
The second point I wish to put to the Minister is much more pertinent to the Amendment. In the country there are something like 500 hospital management committees, and there are probably 1,500 or 2,000 individual hospitals to which Section 5 may apply. Each of those hospitals has to make its own calculation and arrive at its own weekly figure for Section 5 charges. It is not even that each hospital management committee can fix a figure for these beds. We have something like 1,500 possible variations in the weekly charge according to the upkeep costs of each institution. I saw figures the other day showing weekly charges varying from £8 to £12, and I was told today of charges which are considerably higher than £12 a week for the beds. It does not seem to be satisfactory that in a national scheme patients coming into Section 5 beds should have to pay fees varying from £8 to £15 or £16 a week—

Mr. Howard: Even £20 a week.

Mr. Linstead: —my hon Friend says £20 a week—according to the chance of the overhead costs of the hospital which they enter.
If we are to keep the Section 5 principle the least that can be done is for the Minister to fix a standard charge for all hospitals and not to leave it to the luck of the administration—whether it is a new hospital or an old one—as to whether the charges are high or low. I am rather surprised that the Minister is not prepared to accept the powers in the Amendment which would enable him to equalise charges which at present vary by 100 per cent. I hope he will give this matter further consideration if only on the basis that we ought not to present people in the National Health Service with charges varying from £8 to £20 for identical accommodation.

Mr. Baird: It seems to me that the Minister is a little complacent about the danger of discrimination under the present arrangement. Under Section 4 we have the right to set up amenity beds and the patients will pay a small sum for a certain amount

of privacy. Under Section 5 we have the pay beds, and in this case the patient pays 10, 12 or 14 guineas a week for the service and at the same time has to pay the specialist's private fees. That is all right, but it seems to me that if the Opposition are complaining about high charges for pay beds, the solution is not to reduce the cost of pay beds and make them more popular, but to develop amenity beds faster than is being done at present.
I have a very close relative who had to go into hospital in the London area last week. There was not a single amenity bed in the hospital although there were a large number of private pay beds. I believe that this is common all over the London area. The patient wanted privacy. The only way she could get it was by paying 10 guineas a week for a private bed plus 50 guineas specialist's fees. There are not enough amenity beds. Would it not be a solution to the problem to reduce the number of pay beds and hand them over for use as amenity beds? I believe that to be the right approach, and I hope the Minister will look into this. I want to point out that this does not happen in my division. In the Wolverhampton Royal Hospital we have no private pay beds, and I should like that to be the case in the London area.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I do not know what this is if it is not an extension of the amenity bed principle. The Minister says that it is right to develop amenity beds and right that a small charge should be made for them, but that when it comes to the provision of extra services on top of that, amenity bed patients are in some degree private patients, and he turns his back on the whole thing and says that the whole cost, including what is provided by the National Health Service, should be borne by the private patient. The Minister was not consistent in his argument. At first he inveighed against the whole principle of private practice in the hospital and then he turned to Section 4 which admits half the principle already. I should have thought that the Amendment only sought to extend the amenity bed principle and to provide that where specialists are brought in and extra services are given, there should still be subtracted that part of the cost provided by the general hospital service.
The Minister welcomed privacy and said that it must be provided and a little addition must be paid by the patient. What follows privacy? Why should there not be special accommodation, such as slightly more comfortable beds? There can be no objection to that. Why does the Minister stop at privacy? Why does he not accept the principle that there should be a sector of private payment to apply to the whole range of the services right up to the private ward and the consultant and specialist? We ask for that and nothing more. The Minister has destroyed the principle by admitting what is already in Section 4.

Mr. Harrison: The Committee will be aware that in many cases it is easy for people who have money at their disposal to buy their way out of the queue and obtain preferential admission to special beds or blocks in various institutions. Would it not give the case away completely if we agreed to the Amendment? There are complaints in many parts of the country about the ever-growing cost of the private beds in the pay bed blocks. There are complaints in my city that probably in the near future the cost will be £20 a week, a figure which it is almost impossible for many of the present occupants of the beds to pay. Those complaints are followed by the suggestion that the Minister should arrange, as the Amendment suggests, to subsidise this section of hospital work. It was with considerable gratification that I heard the Minister say categorically that he is not prepared in any circumstances to subsidise this hospital accommodation. The pressure of the demand for these pay beds has shown no reduction, and even if the pressure declined I suggest that that accommodation should be transferred for ordinary hospital purposes, thus extending the accommodation for people who certainly cannot afford to pay the sums which will shortly be asked of them for this accommodation.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I merely wish to answer one point made by the Minister, that this proposal would increase the cost of the service. On the face of it that would appear to be so, but I believe that in practice it would have exactly the opposite effect, for this reason. A large number of people are anxious to be

treated as private patients when they become sick and, when they enter hospital, would prefer to make a reasonable payment for their beds and to pay a reasonable fee for their specialist or consultant. Many, however, are people of moderate means who could not find a large sum, so when it is a question of finding the amount required to pay a specialist's fee, and on top of that they have to pay 20 guineas a week for perhaps four or five weeks, they cannot face it. All they can do is to go into the hospital completely free, without making any contribution whatever, instead of paying some reasonable amount, perhaps five guineas or 10 guineas a week for accommodation and services while in the hospital.
If the right hon. Gentleman would look into the question, I am certain he would find that he could expand the area in which hospitals could admit paying patients, and that the net result to the service would be to derive a larger financial benefit than the service would suffer by reason of any immediate reduction.

Dr. Segal: I think it would be fair comment on this Amendment to say that it is inopportune. Although a case could be argued for it, and some of us on this side of the Committee might feel a good deal of sympathy with it, yet when the resources of the Minister are limited, as we all know they are, they should be concentrated where the need is greatest. For the moment we should not introduce into the framework of the Bill these little ancillary frills which are not as desperately urgent as the main work that lies ahead. Perhaps in a few years time this Amendment may be worthy of fuller consideration but, in the meantime, it is the duty of the Minister to concentrate all his efforts where the need is greatest.

Mr. Sparks: It is important that we should not do anything this afternoon which would tend to encourage an increasing demand for private beds, treated by private specialists in hospitals to the detriment of the general Health Service patient who desires to have treatment. In London particularly there is a serious shortage of accommodation in most of our hospitals for the Health Service patient who cannot afford to pay for an amenity bed and a specialist's fee. Consequently there is a fairly long waiting


list in some areas, people are having difficulty in getting in as Health Service patients, and too often it is the practice to persuade such persons to sign a document agreeing to be private patients of the specialist.
A case recently brought to my notice involved a lady who, unable to get into her local hospital as a Health Service patient because of the long waiting list, was persuaded by a private doctor to become a private patient of the specialist. Because she was in pain she elected to do this. She was taken into hospital and after treatment her husband was presented with a bill, which he cannot afford to pay, for 50 guineas, together with the full charge of the pay bed.
There is another way of helping patients apart from reducing the maintenance charge for the use of pay beds in hospitals. If hon. Gentlemen opposite could persuade the specialists to reduce their fees a little to poor people, that would help considerably in overcoming the difficulty which they themselves have adumbrated this afternoon, whereas this Amendment would tend to encourage the increasing demands upon hospital accommodation for private patients to the detriment of poorer people who cannot afford the specialist service.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I want to ask a question, Mr. Bowles, if I may be allowed to do so at this point. My experience is exactly the same as that of the hon. Members for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Baird) and for Acton (Mr. Sparks). I speak with feeling because it concerns a near relative of mine in the City of London. Is it not wrong that a person, who when in great pain agreed to pay three guineas a day for a private bed in a hospital, should not be notified that the specialist service is to be paid for, and should receive a bill for £25 two weeks later? In the case I have in mind, the individual concerned wrote to the general practitioner three times to ask what was the origin of it and why he was not notified before, and he did not even receive a reply. The bill has to be paid, but it seems to me to be an abuse of the present situation.
I am not speaking necessarily for this Amendment but I am saying that the

situation in London at present is being abused—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member who is not speaking to this Amendment. It does not refer to specialists or doctors, but to accommodation.

Mr. Lindsay: Indeed I am speaking about the service, which includes specialist service. That is half the point of the Amendment, Mr. Bowles.

The Deputy-Chairman: With respect, I doubt very much whether it does. I think it comes later, when the Bill will be considered on Report stage.

Mr. Henry Strauss: The point made by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) is met completely by the proviso to Section 5 (1) of the 1946 Act. The risk to which he drew attention really is an impossibility if the Minister carries out the express words of the Act. I am not questioning for one moment that the hon. Member thought he had a point which was perfectly germane to the Amendment, but really it does not tell one way or the other as regards the Amendment before the Committee. Having said what I thought needed pointing out, I do not wish to intervene further in a matter which has been dealt with by those who have far greater knowledge of the working of the hospitals than I have.

Mr. Bevan: May I interrupt the proceedings for a moment in order to give a piece of information? I asked for an investigation to be made—not an exhaustive one because that would have occupied too much time and clerical work, but a spot investigation of the number of free patients in pay bed blocks in order to check to what extent free patients were not admitted on medical grounds entirely to these blocks. My information is that at least 40 per cent. of the pay bed blocks are occupied by free patients, which is itself a tribute to the way in which the administration is carrying out the terms of the Act.

Mr. Harrison: On a point of information, would my right hon. Friend say what he means by a free bed patient? Does he mean that the patient pays for the bed only?

Mr. Bevan: I was referring to Section 5 beds—that is to say, where in ordinary circumstances, if a bed is occupied by a fee-paying patient, both the bed and the specialist fees are paid.
May I be permitted to reply to the question of the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay), because it was a point of some substance? I sent out some time ago an instruction that the patient was to be informed by the general practitioner or the specialist, or both, whether in fact he was to be treated under the National Health Service or as a fee-paying patient. That is to say, the patient ought not to be unaware of his position and subsequently be confronted with bills. It is the obligation of the doctor, to inform, or to ask, the patient whether he or she wishes to be treated as a free patient or as a fee-paying patient. I should be grateful for examples of where this procedure is not being followed, for it is obviously a monstrous hardship on a patient who has been assuming throughout that he or she was being treated inside the free service to be faced with heavy bills.

Mr. Sparks: Is it in order for any medical practitioner or specialist to promise that a person can get into hospital for treatment sooner and quicker by becoming a private patient?

Mr. Bevan: It is not proper to do so. It is the duty of the hospital authorities to admit patients on medical grounds and, where medical grounds are satisfied, to admit patients into the free bed block. The figures I have given show that in most cases this has been carried out. I hope that where it is not being carried out, this Debate will be read by the hospital authorities concerned, because it is an abuse of the service not to follow this procedure.

Mr. Richard Law: The right hon. Gentleman, if he will allow me to say so, has this afternoon been very concilatory—I might even say, unusually concilatory. If the force of his arguments equalled the gentleness of his manner, we should not have to ask the Committee to divide on the Amendment, but I cannot see that in either his opening speech or the explanation he has just given there is anything which really justifies him in rejecting the Amendment.

I should like to examine some of the arguments which he has given to the Committee. He said that there was no evidence of any increase in the demand for private nursing homes. Of course, he is a far better judge than we are of what the evidence is. He said also that if there were evidence, then, of course, he would have to reconsider the position and possibly accept proposals of this kind. Whether or not evidence exists at this moment, it is surely quite clear that if the existing tendencies continue and if prices continue to rise, the private patient will be effectively driven out of the National Health Service hospitals—the public hospitals—and that these nursing homes are bound to come into being. That seems to me to be inevitable.
One point which the Minister made seems to me to be, not disingenuous, but very one-sided. He said that, after all, even if the choice which private patients in Section 5 beds had to make was a hard one, the choice was free. Of course, that is perfectly true. Patients know when they go into private beds of this kind that they will be called upon to pay twice. In a sense, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the choice which faces somebody going into a Section 5 bed is a free choice. He knows that if he goes into that private bed he will be asked to pay double: he will be asked to pay as a taxpayer and as a subscriber to the social security scheme—

Mr. Bevan: He does that.

Mr. Law: —and he will be asked to pay the whole charge of the private bill That, in a sense, is a free choice, but the framework of that choice is not free. It would be equally a free choice if one were to say to somebody, "You can either have nothing or you can have bread and water." The choices that the right hon. Gentleman poses are unfair choices compared with the choice posed to the ordinary citizen who does not go into a Section 5 bed. If it is the case, as, I think, the right hon. Gentleman will admit, that the patient is in a sense paying twice over, both as a citizen and as a private patient, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman would be equally sound if the patient were paying four or ten times over.

Mr. Bevan: Or if he goes to a nursing home.

Mr. Law: Or if he goes to a nursing home. In fact, the Minister is presenting the private patient with a choice whit is hard by comparison to the choice presented to the public patient.

Mr. Bevan: That happens right throughout the service. A person can go to a dentist and either pay for his treatment or have it under the free service; or he can go to an ophthalmic optician and either pay for his spectacles or have them free. He can do that throughout the whole service. It is the individual consumer of the service who decides into which category he is to place himself.

Mr. Law: The individual consumer of the service may be obliged to go into hospital, but the choice with which the Minister presents him is, surely, not a fair one, because he could have presented him with the other choice—the same choice, for example, as is presented to the people who use the amenity beds of Section 4. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would be wrong to charge the private patient less than the cost of the service. I will not suggest to him that that is begging the question, because everybody who goes into hospital is charged less than the service costs—that is the purpose of the National Health Service; people who are unfortunate enough to become ill and need hospital attention get it as a right and without paying the whole charges.
All we are asking under the Amendment is not that the private patient should be specially treated, but that he should be treated in exactly the same way as the public patient. We are not asking that he should get his private accommodation for nothing; all we are asking is that whatever hypothetical allowance might be made for the public patient, whatever his costs might be, that amount might be deducted from the sum which is chargeable to the private patient. We are not asking that the private patient should have special privileges. We are asking that he should have exactly the same privileges as the public patient.
The last point made by the right hon. Gentleman on the increase in the cost of the National Health Service was a very neat and fairly obvious debating point, but I think it was disposed of by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). The fact remains

that if through increasing costs the private patient is driven out of the private ward, the contribution which he would make to the National Health Service will disappear, and, therefore, the cost of the National Health Service will go up, and not down. I should have thought that there were strong arguments, on grounds of both national and administrative economy, for accepting the Amendment, for I am sure that in the long run the charge on the taxpayer would diminish and not increase, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that the Committee might come to a decision.

Dr. Morgan: I am surprised at the arguments used by the other side of the Committee, because the plea which is made is that the National Health Service should become a private service for private individuals with a discrimination in favour of the wealthy. As one who has just had experience of both the National Health Service and private beds in a teaching hospital and one in an exempted hospital, I think that the whole of the argument used here today is in favour of discrimination for the wealthy patient.
The Act is working well, and the first thing the Minister has to see is that any discrimination should be on medical grounds; secondly, that any further discrimination should be on amenity grounds, from the point of view of the patient having solitude and so on, and thirdly, that if a patient has additional amenities and chooses a specialist, for which he has to pay he should also have to pay for his bed. We should have no further extension of the paying beds system by which certain patients can get additional benefits. This subject is controversial and has been fought out in the medical profession. The professional men have decided in favour of the Act as it stands. I know them and am in close touch with the profession, and I know how the profession is feeling on this matter. The Opposition should think twice before they press for a system of this kind, which is so contrary to the whole Act.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes; 139; Noes, 256.

Division No. 249.]
AYES
[3.35 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Albu, A. H.
Deer, G.
Jenkins, R. H.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Dobbie, W.
John, W.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Dodds, N. N.
Johnston, Douglas


Alpass, J. H.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Attewell, H. C.
Dye, S.
Keenan, W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Kenyon, C.


Austin, H. Lewis
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Awbery, S. S.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Kinley, J.


Ayles, W. H.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Kirby, B. V.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.


Bacon, Miss A.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lang, G.


Baird, J.
Ewart, R.
Lavers, S.


Balfour, A.
Fairhurst, F.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.


Barstow, P. G.
Farthing, W. J.
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Barton, C.
Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Battley, J. R.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Leonard, W.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Forman, J. C.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Lipson, D. L.


Benson, G.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Berry, H.
Gallacher, W.
Logan, D. G.


Beswick, F.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Longden, F.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Gibson, C. W.
Lyne, A. W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Gilzean, A.
McAdam, W.


Binns, J.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
McEntee, V. La T.


Blackburn, A. R.
Gooch, E. G.
McGhee, H. G.


Blenkinsop, A.
Goodrich, H. E.
Mack, J. D.


Blyton, W. R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Bowen, R.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Bramall, E. A.
Grey, C. F.
McLeavy, F.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Grierson, E.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Mann, Mrs. J.


Burke, W. A.
Gunter, R. J.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Carmichael, James
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hale, Leslie
Medland, H. M.


Champion, A. J.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Mellish, R. J.


Chater, D.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Messer, F.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hardy, E. A.
Mitchison, G. R.


Cluse, W. S.
Harrison, J.
Monslow, W.


Cobb, F. A.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville.
Moody, A. S.


Cocks, F. S.
Herbison, Miss M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Collindridge, F.
Hobson, C. R.
Morley, R.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Holman, P.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Cook, T. F.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Cooper, G.
Horabin, T. L.
Mort, D. L.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Houghton, Douglas
Moyle, A.


Cove, W. G.
Hoy, J.
Nally, W.


Crawley, A.
Hubbard, T.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Cullen, Mrs.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Daggar, G.
Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Daines, P.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Oldfield, W. H.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Oliver, G. H.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Janner, B.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)




Pannell, T. C.
Royle, C.
Tolley, L.


Pargiter, G. A.
Scollan, T.
Usborne, Henry


Parker, J.
Segal, Dr. S.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Sharp, Granville
Viant, S. P.


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Shurmer, P.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Pearson, A.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Peart, T. F.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Warbey, W. N.


Piratin, P.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Watkins, T. E.


Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Skinnard, F. W.
Watson, W. M.


Popplewell, E.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Snow, J. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Pritt, D. N.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Proctor, W. T.
Sparks, J. A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Pryde, D. J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Pursey, Comdr. H.
Stokes, R. R.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Randall, H. E.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Ranger, J.
Stubbs, A. E.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Rankin, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Rees-Williams, D. R.
Swingler S.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Reeves, J.
Sylvester, G. O.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Woods, G. S.


Richards, R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wyatt, W.


Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Yates, V. F.


Robens, A.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Thurtle, Ernest



Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Tiffany, S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Timmons, J.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and




Mr. Bowden.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Barlow, Sir J.
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Baxter, A. B.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Price-White, D.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Birch, Nigel
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Raikes, H. V.


Bossom, A. C.
Hollis, M. C.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bower, N.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Howard, Hon. A.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hurd, A.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Ropner, Col. L.


Butcher, H. W.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Carson, E.
Jarvis, Sir J.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Channon, H.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Scott, Lord W.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Keeling, E. H.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smithers, Sir W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Langford-Holt, J.
Snadden, W. M.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


De la Bère, R.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Donner, P. W.
Linstead, H. N.
Studholme, H. G.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Sutcliffe, H.


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Drewe, C.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Teeling, William


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Duthie, W. S.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Eccles, D. M.
McFarlane, C. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Turton, R. H.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Erroll, F. J.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Wakefield Sir W. W.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Marsden, Capt. A.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Molson, A. H. E.
York, C.


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Glyn, Sir R.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.



Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harden, J. R. E.
Odey, G. W.
Brigadier Mackeson and




Colonel Wheatley.


Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 250.]
AYES
4.59 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Harden, J. R. E.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Pickthorn, K.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harvey, Air-Comdre A. V.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Barlow, Sir J.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Baxter, A. B.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Price-White, D.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Raikes, H. V.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hollis, M. C.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Birch, Nigel
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Bowen, R.
Howard, Hon. A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bower, N.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Jarvis, Sir J.
Ropner, Col. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jennings, R.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Butcher, H. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Keeling, E. H.
Scott, Lord W.


Carson, E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Channon, H.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Smiles, Lt.-Col Sir W.


Cl fton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Linstead, H. N.
Smithers, Sir W.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lipson, D. L.
Snadden, W. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)



Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Low, A. R. W.
Spence, H. R.


De la Bère, R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Donner, P. W.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
McFarlane, C. S.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Drayson, G. B.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Sutcliffe, H.


Drewe, C.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lond.)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Eccles, D. M.
Maitland, Comdr J. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Turton, R. H.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wadsworth, G.


Erroll, F. J.
Mellor, Sir J.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Molson, A. H. L.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Fox, Sir G.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Nicholson, G.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Nield, B. (Chester)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Glyn, Sir R.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Odey, G. W.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Grimston, R. V.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.



Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.




NOES


Albu, A. H.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Dodds, N. N.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Donovan, T.


Allen Scholefield (Crewe)
Burden, T. W.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Alpass, J. H.
Burke, W. A.
Dye, S.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Attewell, H. C.
Carmichael, James
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Austin, H. Lewis
Champion, A. J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)


Awbery, S. S.
Chater, D.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)


Ayles, W. H.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. P.
Cluse, W. S.
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Bacon, Miss A.
Cobb, F. A.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Baird, J.
Cocks, F. S.
Ewart, R.


Balfour, A.
Collindridge, F.
Fairhurst, F.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Farthing, W. J.


Barton, C.
Cook, T. F.
Fernyhoush, E.


Battley, J. R.
Cooper, G.
Forman, S. C.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)


Benson, G.
Cove, W. G.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Crawley, A.
Gallacher, W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Cullen, Mrs.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.


Binns, J.
Daggar, G.
Gibson, C. W.


Blackburn, A. R.
Daines, P.
Gilzean, A.


Blenkinsop, A.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gooch, E. G.


Boardman, H.
Davies, Haydn (St Pancras, S. W.)
Goodrich, H. E.


Bowden, H. W.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Deer, G.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Delargy, H. J.
Grey, C. F.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Diamond, J.
Grierson, E.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dobbie, W.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)







Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Sharp, Granville


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Shurmer, P.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Gunter, R. J.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Hairs, John E. (Wycombe)
Medland, H. M.
Simmons, C. J.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Mellish, R. J.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Messer, F.
Skinnard, F. W.


Hardy, E. A.
Mitchison, G. R.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Harrison, J.
Monslow, W.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville.
Moody, A. S.
Snow, J. W.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sorensen, R. W.


Herbison, Miss M.
Morley, R.
Sparks, J. A.


Hobson, C. R.
Mort, D. L.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Holman, P.
Moyle, A.
Stubbs, A. E.


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Nally, W.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Houghton, Douglas
Naylor, T. E.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hoy, J.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Symonds, A. L.


Hubbard, T.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
O'Brien, T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)
Oldfield, W. H.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Oliver, G. H.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Orbach, M.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Thurtle, Ernest


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Pannell, T. C.
Tiffany, S.


Janner, B.
Pargiter, G. A.
Timmons, J.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Parker, J.
Tolley, L.


Jenkins, R. H.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rusholiffe)
Turner-Samuels, M.


John, W.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Peart, T. F.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Keenan, W.
Piratin, P.
Viant, S. P.


Kenyon, C.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Popplewell, E.
Warbey, W. N.


Kinley, J.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Watkins, T. E.


Kirby, B. V.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Watson, W. M.


Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Price, M. Philips
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Lang, G.
Pritt, D. N.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Lavers, S.
Proctor, W. T.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Pryde, D. J.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Leonard, W.
Randall, H. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Ranger, J.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Logan, D. G.
Rankin, J.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Longdon, F.
Reeves, J.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Lyne, A. W.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


McAdam, W.
Rhodes, H.
Willis, E.


McEntee, V. La T.
Richards, R.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


McGhee, H. G.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mack, J. D.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Woods, G. S.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wyatt, W.


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Yates, V. F.


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Royle, C.
Zilliacus, K.


McLeavy, F.
Sargood, R.



MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Scollan, T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Scott-Elliot, W.
Mr. Pearson and


Mainwaring, W. H.
Segal, Dr. S.
Mr. Richard Adams.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Shackleton, E. A. A.

Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, in page 22, line 9, at the end, to insert:
At the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section twenty-one (which requires facilities at health centres to be available for the provision of general medical services), there shall be inserted the words 'and, on such terms and conditions as may be determined by the Minister, for the provision by medical practitioners of such other personal medical services (if any) as may be so determined in the case of a particular health centre.'
The purpose of this Amendment is to enable general practitioners to treat private patients in health centres. This proposition has given rise to considerable controversy, and at one time I set my face against it. The reason I did so was because at that time it was uncertain what proportion of the population would

actually register with practitioners. Now, however, the number of persons outside the scheme is so infinitesimal that no danger can arise to the structure of the Service as a whole by allowing general practitioners to take their private patients into the health centres when they are available.
It would not have been unreasonable that if a general practitioner had a substantial proportion of private patients he should treat them in his own private surgery and go to the health centre to treat his public patients. Also, there was always a doubt in my mind whether, if there was a large number of private patients and a large number of public patients at the health centre, there might


not be the danger of discrimination which we have already discussed in connection with the hospital service as a whole.
In view of the fact that the number of people outside the Health Service is very small, it would be unreasonable, where a health centre is available, to expect the general practitioner to maintain a private surgery at which to treat his private patients. However, we shall make it quite clear by regulation, when the health centres are available, that there shall be no two doors in the health centre—one through which shall go the private patient and another through which shall go the public patient—because that would create the very atmosphere which we are anxious to avoid. If a person wishes, for some strange reason which I am afraid I cannot distinguish, to attend a private practitioner in a health centre, that private patient must take his proper place along with the general public in seeking the services of his doctor.
5.15 p.m.
As I say, we shall, when the time comes, frame regulations so as to prevent a discrimination which I am sure everyone on both sides of the Committee would be anxious to avoid. We shall, of course, also be making provision that a doctor shall have a substantial number of patients in the public scheme before he can avail himself of private facilities at a health centre. If a doctor had a very large number of private patients and a very small number on his list it would be unreasonable for him to be able to use the services of a health centre for his private patients. In the meantime we have had the help and advice of the Central Health Services Council. After having examined the whole matter, they recommend that it should be possible for a general practitioner to treat private patients in a health centre.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The right hon. Gentleman is currently reported to be taking some fairly realistic decisions about the main issues of our time. I am rather surprised that he should come from that atmosphere into this Committee and construct castles in the air. There are no health centres, as he knows full well. There might be, if the labour to build them had not been fully employed 40 hours a week elsewhere; there might

be if it had been possible for the raw materials to build them to be acquired either at home or abroad—and we know that there are no incentives to acquire them operating in our economy.
There are no health centres. The Minister's speech was largely irrelevant, although one might well say that this is an additional service which, when the time comes in three or four or five years' time, when this country is in a condition to build these elaborate and costly structures, might fit in with the other subsections in the Section of the Act which detail the content and purpose of these health centres. The main fact of the matter is that this is an irrelevant little Amendment—

Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order. The noble Lord has not yet said a single word about the Amendment. This is not really an argument whether there may be health centres or not or whether there are health centres or not. It is merely an Amendment to make it possible for general practitioners to treat private patients in health centres which do exist.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I was saying that the health centres do not exist. There may be just one experimental health centre which was started years before the Minister had anything to do with the health service. In the last four years, during which he has had full opportunity to build them if he had used his building resources aright, he has not been able to build them. This Amendment is therefore quite irrelevant.

The Deputy-Chairman: The noble Lord must not say that the Amendment is irrelevant. He can speak either for it or against it, but it has been selected by the Chair and it is relevant to this stage of the Bill.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I would ask the Minister to go a little further on one point which he raised, when he implied that there would be some sort of filter through which the doctor would have to pass if he wished to treat his private patients in a health centre amongst other patients on the doctor's list. He also implied that it would not be possible within the terms of the Amendment, or rather I should say, he did not propose that it should be possible, according to the words in his


Amendment, for a doctor with a large proportion of private patients to be able to treat them in a health centre and that it would only be possible if the doctor had a high proportion of patients on his list. If the right hon. Gentleman did not mean that, will he explain what he said?

Mr. Bevan: I was being perfectly frank with the Committee. If they will look at the words, they will see:
… there shall be inserted the words 'and, on such terms and conditions as may be determined by the Minister.…'
I did not want to leave the Committee unaware of what I had in my mind in putting in those words. What I really had in mind was that it ought not to be possible for a general practitioner who would nominally enter the Health Service by having a small list then to do most of his practice, which would be private practice, in the health centre. That would be an abuse of the privilege. I also said originally that there should be an intermingling of both public and private patients in order to prevent unsavoury discrimination.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The second point with which the Minister has dealt is perfectly clear. It is the first point on which I wish he would enlarge if he can. He is fixing in his own mind some sort of proportion between the private patients of a general practitioner and the listed patients. Can he give us any indication of what sort of proportion he is aiming at? I do not want to be meticulous in this matter. Supposing 50 per cent. were private and the other 50 per cent. were listed patients, would that enable him to make use of the health centre? I want some indication. I do not know whether the Minister is able to carry that further.

Mr. Bevan: The answer is that it is really a matter for the House to discuss when the regulations are made. The regulations will be laid before the House. I am merely saying that the reason I am taking the power in the Amendment to make regulations is because I have such a matter in my mind. The proportions will be contained in the regulations, and the House will be in possession of them.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do not think there will be any difference of opinion about this. It is desirable that, on the

whole, both private and public practice should be kept in step with one another. We are all agreed that we must have both forms of practice in a hospital and it is desirable to have both forms in the health centre. The Minister has quite properly suggested that there would have to be certain terms and conditions upon which practitioners might have the advantage of using the health centre for their private patients, but I do not think he said whether this would include financial conditions—

Mr. Bevan: Oh, yes.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: In other words, does he intend—

Mr. Bevan: That will be in the next Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think the Minister is going our way. We shall, as he says, see when the regulations are laid how far he is going our way. But a step along the right road is a step along the right road, and we welcome it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, in page 23, line 8 at the end, to insert:
In section forty-six (which provides for the use of health centres by practitioners) after the words "general medical services" there shall be inserted the words "or other personal medical services or," after the words "subject to regulations," there shall be inserted the words "and to any determination by the Minister under section twenty-one of this Act," and after the words "the Executive Council may," there shall be inserted the words "subject to any such determination as aforesaid.
The purpose of these words is to enable the executive council, when prescribed by the Minister, to make differential charges to general practitioners which will vary with the amount of use they will make of the health centre for their private patients.
It is quite clear that the general practitioner will have to pay a charge to the executive council, in the first place because he will have been relieved of the necessity of maintaining his surgery. That is a matter for future discussion with the representatives of the medical profession, and I am sure that those discussions will take place. At the same time, obviously if in addition a general practitioner is earning money at the health centre by treating private patients,


it is also reasonable that he pays an additional fee, as rent, because he also will have been relieved of the necessity of providing a surgery. I do not think any general practitioner will quarrel with this. It is merely to take power to make those varying charges when the time comes.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Again, we welcome the Minister's step. This is a further step along the right road. He is making private practitioners who are treating a large percentage of private patients rather more eligible tenants of the health centre. It may seem to some rather an extreme measure, but we welcome it, and we only wish that the argument had prevailed on him earlier when we were considering the analogous case of the hospital. If health centres are provided, the further use of them by practitioners for private patients is in line with what we have always argued, but, I should have thought, rather against what has been argued by hon. Members on the other side of the Committee. However, with the powerful influence of the Minister behind it, not merely the Minister but Government supporters are moving our way. We are delighted to see that, and we welcome this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, in page 23, line 8, at the end, to insert:
In paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of section thirty-three (which provides for the issue by medical practitioners providing general medical services of certificates reasonably required under or for the purposes of any enactment) after the word 'of,' there shall be inserted the words 'such certificates as may be prescribed being'.
The Committee may be aware that some while ago, I believe it was before the Health Service Act in fact came into operation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself appointed a Committee to try to weed but the number of certificates which doctors have to provide. It is fairly obvious that a little streamlining can be done in this direction, and that committee, which was known as the Safford Committee, have issued an interim report in advance of its general report in order that some effect may be given to their recommendations.

Mr. Linstead: We all welcome anything that will cut down paper work on the part of medical practitioners, but I ask the Committee to look at this for a moment from the point of view of the patient.
Section 33 of the 1946 Act gives the Minister power to make regulations for certain purposes under paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). The one we are concerned with is (d):
for the issue to patients or their personal representatives by medical practitioners providing such services as aforesaid of certificates reasonably required by them under or for the purposes of any enactment.
The Minister is taking power to limit the certificates which may be issued. Looking at it from the point of view of the patient, he may require a certificate for the purposes of some enactment, for some statutory purpose. The Minister is proposing to curtail the freedom of the patient to get that certificate, I suppose, free of charge. That is the effect of any limitation imposed by any regulations.
I should like some assurance from the Minister that he has that point in mind; that the effect of powers he is now taking may be to prevent certain patients getting certificates free of charge which they require for the purposes of some statutory enactment. It seems rather a strong thing to do. If it is a certificate for some private purpose that is another matter, but some of these certificates may be for a statutory enactment.

Mr. Bevan: The words of the original statute are very extensive indeed, and in the opinion of the Safford Committee throw the net far too wide. It would include a certificate required by the Minister of Transport in connection with an application for a licence to act as a conductor of a public service vehicle. That seems to me to be rather wide for a free certificate. As the free certificates required will be listed in the regulations I think that probably will be the time when we can raise this matter.
It is necessary to do it one way or another. The Safford Committee have stated that a list of free certificates which can be obtained should be provided and the words of the Statute should not be applied.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Linstead: I should like to pursue that example. That is presumably the


extreme type of case which the Minister would rule out by regulation. Is it not unreasonable that somebody who is making an application—be he the driver or conductor of a vehicle—who is required to produce a certificate of general good health should have to pay for that certificate and should be unable to get it free of charge?

Mr. Bevan: Let us consider that at the time. What we are now considering is not my argument for this or that. We are considering a proposal of the committee set up for the purpose that the free certificates which it should be possible to obtain from a general practitioner should be listed.

Dr. Morgan: Is there any likelihood of the report or the recommendations being published soon?

Mr. Bevan: This is a very complicated matter. I should not like to hurry the committee in its work because it is necessary that when the report is made there should be fairly general acceptance of it. Otherwise, there will be a lot of irritation.

Mr. Charles Williams: I feel sure that the Committee will welcome what the Minister said about the elimination of unnecessary clerical work on the part of the doctors or any other members of the community. However, there is one point upon which I am a little doubtful. These certificates can mean a great deal to individuals. I gather that there is nothing in this Amendment to prevent a person in ill-health from getting a medical certificate for the purpose of obtaining extra milk, but it behoves the House of Commons when we get a Minister like the present one who suddenly starts streamlining, to be sure that he is not one of those people who will indulge in cuts to an excessive extent. When we get this sudden conversion in favour of cuts in a person like the Minister of Health, we ought to be careful and watch him. At the same time, I congratulate him on this very small beginning towards putting this service on a better administrative footing, because all of us realise that the doctors have to do a tremendous amount of clerical work. I congratulate the Minister on the step he has taken today. Now he will be able to say that he is one of those in favour of bigger and far more drastic cuts.

Major Gates: Will the Minister give a simple assurance that if this Amendment is passed it will not tie the hands of the House of Commons on any future occasion should a wish be expressed for a certain class of certificate seekers to be included in this list?

Mr. Bevan: We shall have to await the report of the committee before we know what the recommendations are likely to be and we shall have to consider the regulations in the light of that report. Obviously we shall be guided very substantially—but not bound—by what they recommend. The committee will always be able to make its observations on whether the list is too wide or too narrow.

Major Gates: Yes, but are we binding the hands of the Minister or of the House of Commons by passing this Amendment?

Mr. Bevan: All we are doing at the moment is amending the original statute by inserting the words:
such certificates as may be prescribed being.

Mr. Howard: Will it not be necessary to prescribe the certificates immediately this provision comes into operation? The only certificates available will be those which are prescribed, and therefore it will be necessary to have ready the list of prescribed certificates at the exact moment when this Bill comes into operation.

Mr. Bevan: I do not think that it will be necessary at the exact moment.

Mr. Howard: I think so.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): I beg to move, in page 26, line 21, at the end, to insert:
At the end of section fifteen (which requires facilities at health centres to be available for inter alia the provision of general medical services) there shall be added the following subsection:—
'(6) Any medical practitioner providing general medical services at a health centre, may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, make use of the facilities available at the centre for the provision of such other personal medical services on such terms, in-


cluding terms as to the payment of charges by the practitioner, and such conditions as the Secretary of State may determine.'
This Amendment gives effect to the principle which was discussed in two earlier Amendments in relation to the English Bill dealing with the right of doctors to use health centres for private purposes. Owing to the different structure of the two Acts we have been able to compartment this into a single Amendment. There is no differentiation in principle between the Amendments.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Of course, we should not seek to debate this matter again. There are several occasions upon which, when a principle has been decided by the Committee, it will obviously apply in our Northern Kingdom as well as south of the Border. Therefore, the Committee having decided upon this in the case of England, we certainly should not wish to make an alteration in the case of Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

New Clause.—(PROHIBITION OF FULL TIME SALARIED DENTAL PRACTITIONER SERVICE.)

Subsection (1) of section forty of the Act of 1946 and subsection (1) of section thirty-nine of the Act of 1947, (which require Executive Councils to make arrangements in accordance with regulations for the provision of general dental services by dental practitioners) shall be amended by the addition at the end of each of those subsections of the following provision:

Provided that the remuneration to be paid under such arrangements to a dental practitioner who provides general dental services elsewhere than at a health centre shall not, except in special circumstances, consist wholly or mainly of a fixed salary.

—[Mr. Bevan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of this Clause is to carry out in the case of dentists the same guarantees or undertakings that were advanced in the case of general practitioners. It provides that, except at health centres, dentists should never be paid wholly or mainly by fixed salary. There

are special exceptions, as there were in the case of general practitioners, but there is no need to explain the matter. It has been asked for by the dental profession and there is no reason why we should not make the provision.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(RECEPTION INTO MENTAL HOSPITAL OF PERSON UNDER SIXTEEN AS VOLUNTARY BOARDER.)

A person under sixteen years of age shall not be received as a boarder in a mental hospital under section fifteen of the Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1866, as amended by section fifty-nine of the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1913, on his own application, but may be so received on an application by his parent or guardian, and the said section as so amended shall, in its application to any such person, have effect subject to the following modifications—

(a) for any reference to a person desirous of submitting himself to treatment there shall be substituted a reference to a person whose parent or guardian desires to submit him to treatment;
(b) for any reference to notice by a boarder of intention or desire to leave the mental hospital there shall be substituted a reference to notice by the parent or guardian of the boarder of intention or desire to remove him from the mental hospital; and
(c) notwithstanding anything in the aforesaid section fifty-nine, no person under the age of sixteen years shall be received into a mental hospital in pursuance of this section except with the previous assent in writing of one of the Commissioners of the General Board of Control for Scotland.

—[The Lord Advocate.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of this new Clause is to enable children under the age of 16 to be treated as voluntary patients in mental hospitals on the initiative of their parents or guardians. According to the law at present, the admission of a voluntary patient to a Scottish mental hospital depends on the initiative of the patient himself. By this children under the age of 16 will not be admitted as voluntary patients except on the initiative of the patient. Manifestly, that is wrong in relation to children of tender years; a datum line has to be fixed, and we feel that the age of 16 is the appropriate datum line.
By this Amendment, therefore, a child under 16 will now be admitted as a voluntary patient on the application of the parent or guardian. There is a great deal of good remedial work which could be done to such children if they are admitted as voluntary patients, without the need for certification, in cases where they might otherwise be certified, or in other cases where there is no mental condition that would justify certification. The developments in this line of medicine are such that it is desirable that young children should be able to get full advantage as voluntary patients.
Reference has had to be made to the previous Acts of 1866 and 1913. According to the original Act of 1866, a voluntary patient could not be received in hospital except with the prior assent in writing of a Commissioner of the Board of Control. The 1913 Act amended that to enable the assent in writing by the Commissioner to be given any time within three days after admission. We feel that, in amending the law, it is desirable that no child under 16 should be admitted as a voluntary patient on the application of the parent or guardian unless, prior to admission, there had been this consent in writing by a Commissioner of the Board of Control. Therefore, that prior assent is now necessary before the child can be admitted. That has been the position in England since 1930, and the child could be admitted as a voluntary patient on the application of the parent or guardian. It has worked very well, and we think that this is one occasion when we might profitably follow the course which has been taken in England.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We offer no objection to the new Clause being added to the Bill. As a rule, as the Lord Advocate will agree, our provisions regarding the voluntary admission to mental hospitals in Scotland have been of a more informal nature than those in England. On the whole, we have taken up a more advanced attitude in that section of therapy, and it is interesting on this occasion to find that England has gone ahead of us. I think it is a sound power to ask for, but, like all powers involving the liberty of the subject, it will need careful supervision. I trust that the consent of the Commissioner of the Board of Control will be sufficient, though some kind of added care will be

necessary in such cases as will inevitably arise, though we cannot yet conceive them. At the same time, I think this is a power which may properly be entrusted to the authorities in Scotland, whose enlightened attitude to the treatment of mental cases is recognised throughout the world as being of a more advanced, more humane and more sympathetic character.

Mr. McKie: I should like to endorse what has been said by my right hon. and gallant Friend. I think the safeguards, and particularly that mentioned by the Lord Advocate in the later part of his speech, will be adequate to meet any kind of possible abuses, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and all those concerned in administering this new Clause at the Scottish Office will bear carefully in mind the fact that we are here giving them considerable powers and that we may be opening the door to abuses. I am sure that every hon. Member would wish to guard against these possible abuses. After all, we are giving great powers, which must be very carefully watched in order that there may not be any possible loophole for unscrupulous persons.
The kind of case which I envisage is that in which a young child may be left with one parent or may be completely orphaned and placed under the care of guardians who do not care very much about carrying out their onerous responsibilities. I am not for one moment disparaging the good work that has been done in the past and will be done in the future under this new Clause in the treatment of these cases, but the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are cases where the guardians of a child may be only too ready to avail themselves of the provisions of this Clause in order to rid themselves of their responsibility, about which they do not care very much.
There are also cases in which the parents of children have always wished to spare those children the necessity of being placed in an institution at all, no matter how good the treatment meted out to them in such institutions may be. I am not saying that that is a wise attitude for parents to take up, but we have to accommodate ourselves to these sentimental reasons, and, where we have cases of feeble-minded children, we find that the parents are very touchy indeed. We


do not wish to give parents the impression that, if they die and leave behind them weak-minded children, there will be any possibility in the future of their having to face the very thing against which the parents have tried to guard them during their lifetime and of the children being placed in institutions simply because the guardians who were appointed to look after them wished to rid themselves of that responsibility.
I think the safeguard concerning the Commissioner's assent will go a long way to meet the point put by my right hon. and gallant Friend, and I hope that those responsible for administering this provision, both under this Government and its successors, will bear in mind the points which we have placed before them.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(PROHIBITION OF PART TIME DENTAL PRACTITIONERS.)

No dental practitioner who is on the list of a Local Executive Committee and is accepting patients under the National Health Service shall be entitled to accept remuneration from private patients.—[Mr. Baird.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Baird: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I should declare my interest in this matter as a practising dentist, but I should like to point out that I am not speaking as a dentist, but as a Member of this House, not in the interests of the dental profession, but in the interests of a large number of my constituents who are suffering because of the unethical practices of a considerable number of dentists in my division. The new Clause is supported by between 50 and 60 other Members of this House.
I wish to make it quite clear, that, when the National Health Service Act was discussed two years ago, I myself and Members on both sides of the House fought for the liberty of the two professions, dental and medical, in being able to treat both private and public patients. I was in favour of that course, and, therefore, it is with some reluctance that I am now moving this new Clause, which will withdraw that right from the dental

profession. I make no apology for moving it, however, because, in my opinion, the racket now going on in the dental profession in regard to public patients must be stopped.
I want to quote one or two examples of what is going on in my own division at the present time. There is, first of all, Racket No. 1. A patient who is in pain—perhaps it is his own fault, because he ought to have had his teeth cared for earlier—goes along to a dentist and asks to have the tooth removed, and, of course, the pain removed at the same time. The dentist tells him that he is fully booked up for six weeks, a fortnight or perhaps only a week ahead, but that, if the patient comes back after some days, he will see what he can do for him. If the patient offers to pay, the dentist will take the case right away, or within an hour, which immediately cancels out the argument that he was too busy.
Racket No. 2, which is very prevalent, arises from the fact that the National Health Service Act is a compromise. Payments are offered to dentists by means of an itemised scale of fees for every operation. According to this scale, some operations pay much better than others. In our efforts to encourage people to save their teeth, we try to induce them to have fillings, and this operation is better paid than that for fitting dentures. A number of dentists are accepting patients who require fillings and refusing those who require dentures, or are telling the latter that they must either wait or have it done privately.
The third racket—I am only quoting three—is that of talking down the National Health Service Act. The dentist says to the patient, "If you come to me under the Act, I can only give you a second rate type of treatment, especially with regard to dentures. They are cheap; we cannot supply the best materials. If you want a good job, come to me privately." This sort of thing is going on in spite of the fact that the dentist is being paid to carry out the best possible type of treatment.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Has the hon. Member brought any cases of this sort to the notice of his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Baird: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not know the position as well as I do. I have had particulars of such


cases sent to me from all over the country, being, as I am, one of the two dentist Members of this House, but there is great difficulty in proving such cases. The discussion usually takes place between the patient and the receptionist, and not between the patient and the dentist himself. Moreover, most of these things are quite legal in themselves, within the meaning of the Act.
As a result of pressure from hon. Members opposite, dentists have the right to treat both private and public patients. I do not know how general is the situation I have described, but, so far as my own division is concerned, I have made a survey from which I would estimate that at least 75 per cent. of dentists are turning away patients in pain unless they are prepared to pay, and I believe that sort of thing is fairly general throughout the country.
I once argued that there was only a small minority of the profession carrying out this unethical practice, but I am now convinced that there is a fairly large proportion. I do not know what the solution is, but if the Minister can suggest other ways of stopping or minimising this practice, I shall be only too pleased to hear them. To my mind the real solution is large-scale health centres with a fully salaried dental service. Only in that way shall we stop it. Another temporary way would be for the regulations which allow a patient to make representations to the local executive council to be simplified. They are very cumbersome at the present time and are difficult for the patient to understand. Apart from this new Clause, the only other solution is for the profession itself to discipline its members.
When I put down this new Clause some three months ago I received letters from two of the dental organisations. I shall read one of them to the House. It says:
Our attention has been drawn to the Amendment sponsored by you to the National Health Service Act (Amendment) Bill which, if successful, would deprive dentists on the list of, executive councils from treating private patients. I am instructed to inform you that our association is completely out of sympathy with you in this matter and desires to place on record its strong disapproval of your action. In conclusion, should the proposed Amendment be pursued further, our association will resist it to the utmost.

I replied to that letter in a tone which I think hon. Members on both sides will agree was reasonable. I replied:
My attitude is well known. I fought with the profession to have the principle of the freedom of the dentist to treat both private and fee-paying patients incorporated in the Act. This right is now, however, being abused and the abuse must be stopped. I would much rather that the dental profession itself disciplined those of its members who are betraying the high standards of the profession, and I am writing this letter to promise you that if the three dental organisations will come out in the open and condemn the unethical practices of some of their members I will withdraw my new Clause tomorrow. If, however, by their silence they condone this degrading of the profession, I have no alternative but to continue my agitation, which I am convinced is in the best interests of dentistry.
Up to date, I have received evasive letters from two of the dental organisations, but not one of them has accepted my challenge, and nothing has been printed in any of the dental journals, condemning this attitude and asking dentists to act more ethically.
That is the brunt of what I want to say. This sort of position is not due to the fact, as some dentists argue, that they are too busy to treat all these people. I know that dentists are busy and are doing good work, but they are being well paid for doing it. It would not be difficult to organise a system of priorities whereby those suffering pain, and expectant mothers and young children could get immediate treatment under the service. Even if the Minister cannot accept this new Clause just now, I appeal to him to let it go out from this House that its Members condemn the attitude of those dentists who turn away patients in pain unless they are prepared to pay for the treatment they receive.

Mr. Sparks: I beg to second the Motion.
I support this Clause because I think it is important that the matter should be cleared up in the interests and for the benefit of the patient under the National Health Service scheme. Very wide publicity has been given to the provisions of the new Act providing the dental service, and, consequently, a number of people go to the dentist expecting to receive treatment under the scheme and they simply cannot understand why a particular dentist should refuse to treat them in an emergency unless they are


prepared to go as private patients and pay the ordinary fee.
In the public interest, therefore, it ought to be clearly established that where a dentist is practising under the Act, he only treats National Health Service patients and not private patients. This would mean that those dentists who wanted to pursue a private practice could take the private patients, and those who elected to practise under the Act would look after those people who wish to take advantage of the National Health Service Act. If that were done, it would avoid a great deal of confusion and a great deal of disappointment in the minds of a large number of members of the public who when they go for immediate treatment find they cannot receive it under the scheme.
Owing to the sort of practice described by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Baird), many of them think that the whole National Health Service scheme is a bit of a fraud. They are quite wrong, we know, but when they go for treatment and find that by the payment of 15s. or £1 they can have extractions straightaway, whereas if they go as National Health Service patients they have to wait anything up to six weeks, they naturally cannot understand the justification of it—nor can anybody in this House.
The Minister has had a large number of these cases brought to his attention by hon. Members, including myself, and I receive continuous complaints of this sort of thing from my constituents. That being so, I think that the Minister should lay down quite clearly that those dentists who elect to practise under the Act should confine themselves to treating National Health Service patients. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the dentists are being paid extraordinarily well under the scales laid down by the Minister, and, in view of that fact, I think that they should be prepared to do their very best for the National Health Service patients.
Those dentists who do not like the idea of the National Health Service scheme should be left free to practise privately and the public would then know that if they wanted private attention they could receive it by going to such a dentist, and that, on the other hand, if they wished to be treated under the scheme

they could receive such treatment by going to a dentist operating the scheme. Such an arrangement would avoid a great deal of confusion and clear up some of the very bad practices which my hon. Friend has brought to the attention of the House and which have now continued for a considerable time, and are likely to continue unless something is done to end them. Some arrangement can surely be come to between my right hon. Friend and the dental profession to clear up this abuse which is taking place in a very large number of dental surgeries throughout the country at the moment.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The Minister of Health has at times accused some of us on this side of the House of stirring up controversy in connection with the National Health Service. It would now appear that some 50 or 60 of his own supporters have stirred up by this new Clause a more acute controversy than anything we have succeeded in doing, because this Clause is like taking an electric drill to an exposed nerve. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Baird) knew that fact perfectly well
6.0 p.m.
We on this side of the House are utterly and fundamentally opposed to this new Clause in principle. In the first place, if a Clause of this kind were to be added to the Bill it would be the grossest possible breach of faith with the dentists. They have come into the scheme on the footing that the scheme will allow them to engage both in public and in private practice.

Mr. Baird: Does not the hon. Member consider that the action of these dentists in turning away patients is a breach of faith with the patients?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I shall say something about that in a minute. The fact remains that the dentists came into the scheme because they were assured that the scheme allowed them to carry on both their private and their public practices. If anything were now done to go back on that, it would certainly be regarded—as indeed it would be—the grossest possible breach of faith with the dentists.
The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton spoke of a "racket." Indeed he enlarged upon it, and indicated certain


things which would certainly amount to a racket if they occurred. When this scheme was first brought forward in this House I remember putting down a Prayer to annul the order constituting the scheme and arguing on that Prayer that the scheme as presented would necessarily lead to just the sort of complaints which the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton has made this afternoon. We saw then quite clearly that the scheme was bound to create a certain amount of difficulty, which would necessarily mean that certain wrong things would be done under the service.
I do not think any hon. Member on either side of the House would have disagreed with the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton if he had said that a number of bad things are being done under this service. It is clear that among the many thousands of dentists, there are some who will take advantage of the present circumstances, but the overriding difficulty of the dental service is that there is a great deal more work to be done than the dentists can possibly do. It is because that fact was apparently overlooked when this scheme was put into operation that we have the present difficulties of which the hon. Member has complained.

Mr. Baird: If there is an area which is under-doctored, do we say that it is ethical for a doctor there to treat patients who pay him and reject those who cannot afford to do so, even if they are dying?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am perfectly certain that there are doctors, dentists and professional men of all sorts who are prepared to work 10, 12 and even 15 hours a day for the public good, but I am also certain that there are quite a lot of very respectable professional men who are not prepared to work beyond a certain point for no advantage whatsoever. Under the scheme as it was first introduced, and to some extent still, certain dentists are working far longer hours than they should do. They say to themselves, "I am prepared to work eight or 10 hours a day," or whatever number of hours it may be, "in the public service, and I shall reserve two or three hours for my own private practice." There is nothing unethical about that.
It is because that has occurred in a number of cases that certain dentists today are not taking any more patients

under the scheme but still have a certain amount of room for private patients. It may be that that is not the highest possible standard of ethics, but it was the result which was bound to follow upon the scheme.

Mr. Bevan: Why?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Because it too great a pressure is put—

Mr. Bevan: Who put it?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman must have known the number of dentists in existence. He must have had some sort of an idea of the kind of pressure that would be brought to bear on them if a free service were introduced in the whole country in the place of a paying service. I do not wish to pursue that point at great length, but if the right hon. Gentleman really wishes to investigate this subject he might read the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates of this House which shows the position extremely clearly.

Dr. Guest: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some dentists devote one day a week to National Health Service patients and keep the rest of the week for private patients? They have plenty of time but they will not take National Health patients on the days which they reserve for private patients. Is that ethical?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member has asked me whether that is, ethical—

Dr. Guest: No doctor would do that.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member is getting very hot under the collar.

Dr. Guest: I am, very.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that it is perfectly ethical for a dentist to remain out of the service altogether. If instead of remaining out altogether, he gives one day a week to the service, surely he is, on the whole, doing a better service to the country—

Dr. Guest: There is a difference between the words "legal" and "ethical."

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member would be right if he accepts this


standard of ethics, that it is right to compel any professional man, whether doctor, dentist, or whatever it may be, to work for the State.

Mr. Bevan: He is working for his patient, not the State.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: We are discussing whether he should be compelled to work under a public scheme or whether he should still have the right to work in either capacity, or only to some extent for a private person. It is quite fair for any doctor or dentist to say that he will divide his time between both.

Dr. Morgan: He is breaking his contract.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I cannot really deal with all these interruptions; if I did I should take up the entire time of the House.
If this new Clause were added to the Bill every dentist would have to make up his mind whether he would be a dentist in the public service or whether he would carry on a purely private practice. We should, therefore, have two services. The profession would be split completely and there would be no overlapping. That would be entirely and fundamentally wrong. If this service is to be a success it must be linked up with private practice. We shall get only bad results if we have a free public service catering for a certain section of the population and a separate private service for a different section of the population paying fees. I think that can only have bad results and I should deplore its coming into effect.
It must be remembered that although this new Clause is applicable only in the case of dentists, if the right hon. Gentleman were to accept it then the principle would be equally applicable all along the line. If we can say that a dentist who enters the service must be compelled to give up his private patients, then we should be equally justified in saying that a doctor who enters the service should be compelled to give up his private patients.

Mr. Paget: That is not so. The whole point is that the doctors have played the game and the dentists have not.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That is a very interesting interruption from the hon. and learned Member because it would appear that his reasons for supporting the Clause—as I understand he does—is that he intends it as a punitive action against the dentists for what they have done. Is that so?

Mr. Paget: If the hon. Member is asking me, I want the proper service for the ordinary patient who has toothache. If the position was that the dentists played the game and gave that proper service, when they were doing both private and public patients, as the doctors have done with their patients who are ill, we should say, "Go on with it." They have not played the game and, therefore, we have to adopt other methods.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: In other words, the hon. and learned Member simply wishes to visit retribution on the heads of the dentists. Let me remind him of this. The position of the dentist is, in fact, different from the position of the doctor in that the dentist receives a fee whether he takes a public patient or a private patient. I think it is beyond controversy that, even now, the fees paid in respect of public patients are fully as high as those which are paid by private patients.

Mr. Baird: The hon. Member does not seem to realise that every penny of the dentist's income received from the State is declared to the Income Tax authorities for tax purposes, but that there is no way of checking so far as his private patients are concerned.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: There were so many noises coming from the hon. Member's side of the House that I could not hear what he said.

Mr. Baird: The remuneration received by the dentists from the State is 100 per cent. taxed because it has to be declared, but—and I am making this charge after due consideration—there is a considerable amount of the dentist's private income, at least in a large number of cases, which is not declared because it is so difficult for the Income Tax authorities to prove what is his real income.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member is himself a dentist. I have seen a


good deal of fouling of one's own nest, but I do not think I have ever seen such an example as this.

Earl Winterton: Hear, hear.

Mr. Baird: I came into this House to represent my constituency, East Wolverhampton, not the dental profession.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Before the hon. Member interrupts me again, I must warn him that I shall not be able to give way any further. He has made a charge against the dentists which, broadly speaking, I believe to be quite unjustified. There are certainly exceptions. Among so large a body of men it would be astonishing if there were not. But the fact remains that these difficulties have arisen because the scheme is top-heavy and did not take account of the tremendous load which would rest upon it. We have these difficulties because of that. If this Clause were accepted, it would be a breach of faith with the dentists and it would be a splitting up of the service into two, which would be a bad thing for the community as a whole. I hope very much that, on behalf of the Government, the right hon. Gentleman will indicate that he is not willing to accept it.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: If I had been in any danger of accepting the new Clause it would be in consequence of the speech to which we have just listened. I have never seen such a complete exposure of general ethics as that which we have had from the other side of the House this afternoon. What the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) suggests is that if the patient goes to a dentist's surgery in pain, it would be ethical, on the part of the dentist to prefer to treat a private patient who would pay more.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I never said anything of the sort.

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member will look at what he said, in HANSARD tomorrow, he will find that, if he did not say it in those precise terms, he said practically the same thing.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I took great trouble to point out that the fees paid by private patients were, in fact, lower than those paid by public patients.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Bevan: It is no good hon. Members saying that. I am the very last person to be bullied. When we have general charges echoed by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton)—

Earl Winterton: rose—

Mr. Bevan: I have not yet finished my sentence about the noble Lord. When the noble Lord says "Hear, hear" to a charge that my hon. Friend was fouling his nest, the "Hear, hear" meant that hon. Members opposite would put professional solidarity against the public interest.

Earl Winterton: I am not concerned in the argument at all. In fact, I was not following it; I was reading my Notice Paper. My attention was called to the fact that for the first time in my long experience in this House an hon. Member opposite thought fit to bring a most discreditable accusation against his own profession. That is why I cheered when my hon. Friend said that the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Baird) was fouling his own nest. It is the first time I have known it to happen.

Mr. Bevan: I make no comment to the House about the statement that has been made, but it is the duty of hon. Members to consider the general and the public interest against the sectional interest. That is the proper standard of conduct for a Member of this House, but we have had all the time from the other side of the House, ever since I have been a Member of it, surrender to every professional pressure group, and always a general neglect of the public interest before a professional pressure group. We have had it again tonight. In fact, the dental profession has been guilty of worse conduct than any other profession in the Health Service. That is obvious from the cases which have been brought forward. It would have been much better if hon. and right hon. Members opposite had deprecated that conduct, and not tried to apologise for it, to explain it away and to blame it on to the scheme. I should have thought it was their duty, as hon. Members of this House, and the duty of everybody who has the well being of the patients at heart, to deprecate unprofessional conduct and not to


try to find justification for the ethics of the jungle—commercial discrimination against people in pain.
As a matter of fact, what we have to consider here this evening is which practice is on the increase; whether the good practice or the bad practice is on the increase. Is the Health Service operating to drive out the bad behaviour and is it encouraging the good behaviour, or is the reverse taking place? If I were satisfied that the misconduct of a part of the dental profession—and we must always bear in mind that we are talking about a part of the dental profession and not of the dental profession as a whole—was on the increase, then I should accept the new Clause, because I would then consider that it was necessary to defend the public patient against the misbehaviour of some of the dentists. But I am satisfied, on experience, that the misconduct is on the decrease and that the behaviour of the dentists, generally speaking, is improving. Therefore, I say it is far better for us to allow the disciplinary machinery which has been established under the scheme to operate against the person who is misbehaving, and I hope that before long the opposite of Gresham's law will prevail, and that the good will drive out the bad.
I have had instances brought to my notice of discrimination which I consider to be not only unjust but cruel. There is, for example, the case of a schoolteacher who applied for dentures. She was not able to do her work at all without dentures. I have it on the authority of one of my hon. Friends here that, because this was not an offence against the Service, against the legal contract, she was informed by the dentist, "If you want them under the National Health Service you must wait for four or five months, but if you want them privately you can have them in a week." That is monstrous misconduct. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is not that true?"] Yes, but it is wrong.

Sir Ian Fraser: Surely that is, in fact, true, and that is what is the matter with the Service.

Mr. Bevan: No. It is what is wrong with the dentists. If the dentist realises he has a schoolteacher who must have those facilities to do her work rightly, he is doing a disservice if he deliberately

says to her, "If you want them free you will have to wait for them." By saying she will have to wait he leads to the assumption that he has not time to do the work. How, then, would he have time to supply the dentures privately? This is exploitation of the principle of free choice. I am surprised at the hon. Member. I am astonished at him. This is the kind of moral morass into which the Opposition fall in these matters. If the dentist in this case were doing his duty, if he were behaving with a proper sense of public spirit—and mark you, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member has said that, in many instances, the dentist is better paid for public service than for his private services—then that selection—

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I gave the right hon. Gentleman a perfectly good explanation. The dentists are overworked. A very large number of them quite deliberately devote a certain proportion of their time and efforts to the public service and a certain proportion to private service.

Mr. Bevan: Does not the hon. Member realise the dilemma he gets himself into every time he interrupts? If the dentist is overworked, how is it possible to do the work privately and not publicly? It is the same work, and the dentist is in the position that he will do a certain amount publicly and a certain amount privately. What has actually happened in this instance is that we have had no control whatsoever on the money which the patients have been paying for private work. None at all. We have no evidence about which costs less.
When the hon. Member speaks about the pressure that we unreasonably brought to bear against the dental profession, I point out that in the beginning it was pressure brought to bear upon this House by the dental profession. Really, what was the matter at the beginning of this scheme was that we had exploitation of scarcity value by the dental profession as a whole. When he speaks about a contract between the Minister of Health and the dental profession, I point out that the largest organisation did not advise its members to join the National Health Service. They came in as individuals. There is no contract in existence. I could accept this new Clause without breaking any contracts with the dental profession. The


hon. Member has got his facts as bad as his morals. Nevertheless, I am not going to be influenced by what he has said.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of dental ethics, is there not in the dental profession a body similar to that in the medical profession, which has the General Medical Council? That would deal with dentists who behave unethically. If there is not such a body, will he set up one?

Mr. Bevan: What is wrong here is social ethics. It is not a case of a dentist's misbehaving himself in respect of his patient when he has taken the patient as a patient. This is bad social morality, by which the dentist inflicts unnecessary hardship and pain upon people on account of the fact that they are poor, because if they are not poor they can buy his services. That is the whole point. That is the reason why we have the National Health Service. It is to enable ordinary citizens to have access to medical skill without having to be blackmailed in doing so. That is the whole point of it. It is the Opposition that have led me into this obiter dictum. I hope they will be silent, or that, if they speak, they will pay more regard to the general welfare and less to a number of pressure groups.
As I said when I rose to speak, I do not propose to accept this new Clause, because I believe it would not be in the best interests of the Service as a whole. I think a number of dentists might immediately say that they would not give any public service at all, in which case we should have a large number of patients who would not be treated. It is obvious that a very considerable volume of patients has been treated by the dentists already, and that a great deal of relief has been given. So I would deprecate any move just now which would have the effect of depriving people of the services of dentists.
As I said at the very beginning, I am satisfied that the good practices are driving out the bad practices. It is obvious, for example, from the number of emergency cases that what happened in the beginning is not happening now on the same scale. Extractions are taking place, giving immediate relief, on a far greater scale than before. Furthermore, we have tightened up the situation so that

a dentist cannot say now that he will extract the teeth under the National Health Service and provide the dentures privately. That is an offence against the Service. It is an offence against the regulations. Once a dentist has agreed to treat the patient, the full treatment must be under the National Health Service and the dentist cannot discriminate between different parts of the treatment. He can reject the patient if he wishes, but he cannot reject any particular part of the treatment once he has started it.
I hope, therefore, that, in all the circumstances, and for the welfare of the scheme as a whole, this new Clause will not be pressed. I am sure that the many first-class people in the dental profession will be deeply pained by the belief that the general public do not hold the dental profession in the esteem in which they would like it to be held, and I hope, therefore, that we can put this bad thing behind us and look forward to a general improvement in the Service.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am sure that with the concluding sentences of the Minister's remarks there will be general agreement, but I think his tongue led him into betraying himself when he said that he had been led away into this obiter dictum—with the emphasis on the "bitter," for bitter indeed the emphasis was. The fact that emerges from his discussion is that the Minister agrees with my hon. Friend the Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) and rejects the views of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Baird). [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. The Minister asks the House to accept the view of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hendon that the new Clause should be rejected, and to reject the view of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton that the Clause should be accepted.
Furthermore, he accepts the view of my hon. Friend that the practices are the practices of a minority—a tiny minority—of the profession, and rejects the view which led my hon. Friend to remark that he had never heard of such a case of fouling his own nest as that of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, who said that 75 per cent. of the profession in his division were not merely carrying out unethical and unsocial practices but were, indeed, engaged in frauds on the Inland Revenue.

Mr. Baird: I said no such thing. I said that 75 per cent., on my estimate, were turning away patients in pain because they would not pay the dentist's fee.

6.30 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes, but he went on to say much more dangerous, damaging and libellous things than that. He said that the reason they took these fees was that the fees returned under the scheme were subject to tax and the fees which they were getting back under the counter, black market, were not subject to tax. That was the accusation of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton.

Mr. Baird: If, as the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) says, the dentist is often paid a smaller fee for the work which he does privately than the fee which he would get if he treated the patient publicly, why does he treat the patient privately? Why does he not treat him as a public patient?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: What the hon. Member has to justify before the House is the accusation of fraud upon the Inland Revenue which he brought against the vast majority of the dentists in his own division, and, by implication, upon the rest of the profession throughout the country. He was bringing forward his division as typical of divisions throughout the country.

Mr. Baird: indicated dissent.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes. He did not bring forward Wolverhampton as a cesspool of iniquity singular and unique in the country. He said that he was bringing forward this Clause, which does not apply only to Wolverhampton but which applies throughout the country, and which could only be justified on the basis that the practices and proportions which he mentions would also apply throughout the country. That was a contention rejected by the Minister of Health and on that he asked the House, if there is a Division on this Clause, to go into the Lobby on the side of the hon. Member for South Hendon and against the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton. That seems to me to be the position in which the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton has got himself and from which I leave him to extricate himself.

Mr. Bevan: I am not in a position to express an opinion about that any more than the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He may not be in a position to express an opinion, but he expressed it. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will read HANSARD tomorrow and there he will see how that statement is not correct. What he says is that I have repudiated the statement made by my hon. Friend that there was a disposition to pocket cash receipts. I am not in a position to confirm or deny that statement, any more than is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman is, I think, a little forgetful, which is not surprising in view of the wild and woolly words which he uses. He has appealed unto Caesar and to Caesar he must go. I also appeal to HANSARD. He will there find that he said that the proportion that was mentioned by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton was not the proportion he had in mind and he mentioned a smaller proportion. No one can call 75 per cent. a small proportion.

Dr. Morgan: He said a minority.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Does the hon. Member think that 75 per cent. is a minority? Let him get his arithmetic right before he intervenes in the House. The Minister has said that he does not believe that the charges which the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton made, and the extent to which they were made, were justified.

Mr. Scollan: He never said any such thing.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) has no right, I think, to come in and defend the Minister. The Minister, on the whole, is perfectly capable of defending himself. I have never heard of his sheltering even behind the hon. Member for Western Renfrew.

Mr. Baird: There are certain areas of the country where this practice has been carried on to a much greater extent than in others. I quoted my division because in my division it is being carried on to a great extent. I know of other areas where there is co-operation to a great extent with the Minister.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member now begins to modify his charge. He does not modify his Clause. His Clause remains an accusation over all the country. It is a proposed remedy for all the country—a proposal, which the Minister has turned down, applying 10 all the country. He cannot get out of it by saying that his own division is particularly bad in this respect, because he has brought forward a general Clause, and if he says that 50 or 60 other hon. Members have signed it, I take it that he wishes us to believe that the reasons which he gave for the Clause are also widespread throughout the country.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said that he was very concerned in the relief of patients suffering from pain through toothache. That is what everyone is concerned with. The question is how will it best be brought about. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton said that it would be best brought about by passing this Clause, and the Minister says that it will best be brought about by not passing this Clause.

Mr. Scollan: I am afraid the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is "passing the buck."

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We are not "passing the buck." We are engaged in the examination of as fouling a speech about an honourable profession as was ever delivered in this House, and I am refuting it out of words from the mouth of the Minister of Health. That is very important and necessary.
Now we come to the actual merits of the new Clause. The amendment is a danger because it may militate against what we want. I think that the Minister was perhaps a little cavalier in the dismissal of the arguments of the hon. Member for South Hendon, when he said that he thought this thing was due to heavy pressure placed on the dental profession. I think that is so. I think that is how these practices arose, that the pressure was so great as to produce a perfectly legitimate income, in some cases up to £20,000 or £30,000 a year, and that the pressure was out of all proportion to the pressure put on other professions.

Mr. Bevan: May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to qualify that

statement, otherwise his friends the dentists will be more angry with him than they probably will be already. He must always think of these figures as gross payments and not net payments and very often as involving a group of people.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am well aware of that. I think that the Minister will not deny that the pressure and the facts—both the way in which the remuneration worked out and the length of hours which the dentists were willing to work—were both out of all proportion to what he had envisaged when he brought in the scheme. As for the remuneration, the mere fact that twice, purely by a overhead cut, he reduced the remuneration is proof of that, and the report of the Committee on the subject, showing that dentists were working chair-side hours far beyond what had been expected, is proof of the other. Both are evidence of a great strain placed on the profession. The only way in which it can be fundamentally remedied, is by an expansion of the number of dentists. That will take time, and it cannot be done in time to remove this strain.
It is for those reasons that hon. Members on this side drew attention to the strain which the scheme would put on a number of dentists which was insufficient to carry it out. The strain is shown in one extreme case which has been mentioned in connection with the school dental service.

Mr. Sparks: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman trying to justify the practice of which we complain, of a dentist declining for a period of six weeks to extract a tooth which is causing pain, but agreeing to extract it at once provided the person pays 15s. to have it done? Is he or is he not justifying that practice? That is the kernel of our case.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Certainly not. What I am discussing is the new Clause. This is the House of Commons, and we are not debating an abstract question about whether an extraction should or should not take place.

Mr. Baird: rose—

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I hesitate to give way again. If I do so, I hope I shall not later on be accused of holding up the proceedings.

Mr. Baird: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had been listening to me earlier on, he would know that I admitted that this new Clause was cumbersome. I said I did not know that it would really work, because I had always been in favour of the principle of the choice of a professional man. I said the best solution was for the dental organisations themselves to discipline their members. Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that both sides of the House should appeal to the professional organisations to discipline their own members? If so, I will at once withdraw my new Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Certainly, we would all agree, on both sides of the House, that the dental profession should be actuated by the highest professional motives, and should conduct itself on a high social and ethical level. But does the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton seriously think that the best way to produce that is by hurling the wild and reckless abuse at them that he has done—or, indeed, to a lesser degree, some of the more inaccurate remarks of the Minister of Health? I do not blame the Minister of Health so much, because he is a man of high temper, of very active and vigorous reactions, who has been under great strain recently, much of whose advice has been turned down—the advice given by his powerful newspaper was rejected.
I therefore sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that later on he will regret the somewhat vehement way in which he rejected the Clause, because sometimes, I will not say the cloak-and-dagger attitude, but the bladder-and-poniard attitude of which he is such an exponent, leaks into his conciliatory speeches. The weapon which he naturally seizes, the poniard, is not naturally the one which is most useful for dispelling suspicion.
Therefore, I would only say that tonight his conclusions are very sound, but I think the supporting contentions which he advanced are not so sound. What we are concerned with in this House is his final conclusions, and all we can say is that his conclusions are unexceptionable. We agree with his view, but we disagree with the view of his hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton, and if

he divides the House against his hon. Friend we shall be only too pleased to give him every support in the Lobby.

Sir I. Fraser: I wish briefly to say a few words about the rights of the professional man himself, which seem to me to have been overlooked in this Debate, and overlooked in general. I say this quite advisedly. I do not believe that there is a medical man or a dentist who would deliberately cause pain to any person, rich or poor, paying or non-paying, by neglecting him when he came into the surgery. At the same time, I do say that a man has a right to determine, to some extent and to some degree, the kind of work he will undertake, and that right should not be wholly denied to him.
The Minister of Health himself would undoubtedly feel that he renders some service to the community by espousing the cause of those who believe in him up to the present, and by generally saying a word for Wales and for Labour supporters—and, he would probably say, for the people. But suppose he chose to retire and to become a professor of philosophy in a university of Wales. Who would say that he had been cruel to the people by denying them services he alone can render—services as poignant and important as that of pulling out a tooth at the right moment? If he chooses to say "I prefer to do politics only one day a week in Caernarvonshire County Council, and on the other days of the week I will study philosophy", has he not the right at least to choose to some extent what he will do with his talents?
6.45 p.m.
Why should the right hon. Gentleman say that men who are dentists, doctors, physiotherapists, or members of other ancillary services of the National Health Service, must do what they do in a particular way, and that if they do not do it in that particular way they are knaves? They may merely be people who choose to do their work in a particular way. I cannot myself see that any harm is done by, broadly speaking, giving the medical men and women, the dentists and the ancillary practitioners, the right to be partially in the Service and partially out of it. Indeed, we may get a much wider and broader viewpoint by taking that more tolerant view. For my part, I am very glad that the Minister has taken that view.
My reason for rising to speak is that I discern such a strong view being taken upon this matter by some of those behind the Minister. I think they are making a mistake, I am sure they are doing an injustice, and I want to try to persuade them by my arguments, and by putting before them and the House a particular example, that they ought not to go so far in this matter of trying to destroy and encouraging the destruction of private practices. It is quite clear that if this view is taken by back benchers of the Labour Party, if they remain in power or come back to power and go on pressing the Minister or his successor, some day or another a Clause like this will be passed, and it will be the thin end of a wedge. When they have got the dentists compelled to work full time they will then have the doctors, and finally the physiotherapists—the people I am interested in.
This is a very brief illustration of how people can be hurt and have harm done to them without it being meant. There are just a couple of hundred blind physiotherapists. There are not so many things blind people can do, but they can do this, and do it extremely well. It suits them best to be in private practice, but the system of this scheme discourages their private practice. The Minister, at my request—and I thank him for this—wrote to all the hospitals and said "Give these men jobs in the hospitals." Well, that is something. I want them to have part-time jobs in the hospitals so that during the other part of their time they can undertake private work for which there is a call, which they need and which they can do extremely well. Up to the present the Minister has not refused this part-time work, but if this kind of agitation goes on behind him against part-time work for dentists and doctors, the time will come when the private practices of these men will be destroyed; they will not be able to give so many days or hours a week of public service in the hospital and then do some private work in the evenings, or during the other part of the week.
While we realise the doctors' oath and the dentists' ethics, the kindly feeling of all of us must support the view—which I am sure is general—that any of us, whether we do it by pulling out teeth or by giving kindly advice, try to relieve pain

and to help people, perhaps by seeing them, even when we are overworked and tired, whether or not we get fees for it. Most people behave in that way, but we have at least a right to choose in general the way we do what we do. If we do not want to be engaged primarily in the public service, or partially so, then let us choose to do the work we can do in another way. My protest, therefore, is not against the Minister, for he has been right here, but against those back benchers who would destroy all the liberty and all the freedom of the professions one after the other.

Mr. Baird: Despite the arguments of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and after listening to my right hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(DISQUALIFICATION OF PERSONS PROVIDING PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES.)

After subsection (7) of section forty-two of the Act of 1946 and subsection (7) of section forty-three of the Act of 1947 (which relates to the disqualification of practitioners), the following new subsection shall be inserted:—
(8) In any regulations applying to persons undertaking to provide pharmaceutical services and relating to the investigation of complaints, the holding of inquiries or the making of appeals, where the circumstances appear to call in question the conduct of a pharmacist who is not himself a person undertaking to provide pharmaceutical services, provision shall be made for securing to that pharmacist the same opportunity of appearance audience, calling witnesses and producing evidence in relation to the complaint as is afforded under the preceding subsection to the person undertaking to provide pharmaceutical services."—[Mr Linstead.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Linstead: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause arises from a discussion in the Committee stage on an Amendment which I withdrew after hearing what the Minister had to say. One of the things which struck me, when listening to the discussion on the previous Clause, was the fact that we shall never get this Service running smoothly unless the Minister can carry with him all the professions and each of them as a whole.
This Clause deals with the pharmaceutical service. I am attempting to insert something which will help to establish


the responsibility of pharmacists who are actually giving pharmaceutical services. It will be realised that there are many chemists' shops under the management of pharmacists which are not owned by pharmacists. Owing to the structure of the Service and the provisions of the parent Act, the contractor with the Minister in this case is not the pharmacist who is actually giving the service but the owner of the pharmacy. I believe that for a really healthy pharmaceutical service the more the Minister can bring in the pharmacist manager and make him feel he has a live responsibility for what goes on in the premises he manages, the better and fuller the service he will get.
I attempted to bring this about during the Committee stage by an Amendment which used a phrase that said that the Minister should be responsible for the service, but after discussion I realised that that was not the appropriate way of doing what I had in mind. Therefore, I have brought forward this Clause, which brings in all pharmacist managers by the provision that in the event of any complaint being made about the quality of the pharmaceutical service in a particular pharmacy, it shall not merely be the proprietor who shall be responsible to the committee but also the pharmacist manager. The present position is not satisfactory. If a complaint is made, the person who has to answer that complaint is the owner, not the man who gave the service and is responsible for what happened. It does not seem satisfactory that an owner of a business can go before the committee and give information which may involve the conduct of the manager without the manager knowing what is being said or having an opportunity of saying anything on his behalf.
It is provided here that where a complaint is made, notice of the complaint shall go to the responsible pharmacist as well as to the owner of the business, and that he shall have the same opportunities as the owner of attending before the committee. There can be no possible objection to this because it is only elementary justice. I have been a little surprised, however, to hear that quite recently some of the trade union representatives of the pharmacist managers do not consider this to be a useful provision. If I understand their position aright, they are rather lukewarm

in their support and want something stronger to establish the position of the pharmacist managers. If the Minister can see his way to go at least as far as this, he will be doing something for the man who really gives the service, and I think the trade unions will realise that there is a substantial gain for their members.

Mr. Skinnard: I beg to second the Motion.
I support this Clause for reasons that are illustrative of the point raised by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead). The position of the qualified pharmacist manager is something that has caused a great deal of perturbation among pharmacists generally, because, as is well known, it may be that a qualified pharmacist runs the National Health Service side of a business which is owned by someone who has no professional qualifications whatever. When an inquiry takes place on a complaint, it is obvious that the proprietor of any business must be called to account, because he is responsible for the employee, but the employed person may have a professional responsibility which is wider than his position as an employee.
While this Clause is a safeguard for the qualified pharmacist against whom a complaint is made, it does not safeguard his position in other respects. It is for that reason that their representative organisations are lukewarm towards this piece of justice to the qualified man vis-à-vis his unqualified employer. One small doubt exists in my mind. I am wondering whether it is absolutely essential to obtain the safeguard we seek by means of a Clause in a Bill and whether this could not be done more simply and effectively by way of regulation. I am sure that the Minister will inform us about that. I think that the position which has been moderately stated by the hon. Member for Putney is worthy of consideration and feel sure that my right hon. Friend will be sympathetic.

Mr. Bevan: I have very great sympathy for the intention that lies behind this Clause. The position is a simple one. The company will be in contact with the executive council for the supply of drugs. There may be a complaint by the executive council against the company. The


case may be heard by the executive council, although in fact the concrete complaint might lie against the employee who will not have been heard by the committee making the investigation. The purpose is that the individual whose professional character or industry may have been called into question shall have an opportunity to defend himself before a decision is reached. I am in entire sympathy with that, but I suggest that a Clause in a Bill is an extremely ambitious vehicle to convey what can be done much better by regulation, which I propose so to do.

Mr. Scollan: I belong to a trade union which caters for pharmacists and chemists. Is there no right of representation when there is any question involving the integrity or ability of a particular chemist?

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: If he is in direct contract with the executive council he would normally be heard, because the charge would lie against him. If he has an employee who is involved, the employee would be heard under the regulation.

Mr. Scollan: With no trade union representation on his behalf?

Mr. Bevan: Yes, I am prepared to make a provision either for him to be heard himself or through a person he might nominate.

Mr. Linstead: I am grateful for what the Minister has said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(CHARGES TO BE PAID BY CERTAIN CLASSES OF PERSONS.)

(1) Regulations may provide for such charges as may be prescribed to be made to persons not normally resident in the United Kingdom for services provided under the Act of 1946 or the Act of 1947.

(2) Regulations may provide that in such cases as may be prescribed the charges may be made and recovered by the person providing the services:
Provided that this section shall not apply to any person normally resident in any country with which His Majesty's Government have made such reciprocal arrangements as may appear to the Minister to be satisfactory.—[Lieut.-Colonel Elliot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I am sure this Clause will appeal to the Minister. He has been saying that all the Opposition's Amendments tended to increase the cost of the scheme, but by this Clause there is no such danger. The Minister has objected to the suggestions outlined in the Clause because he feared they would place an unreasonable administrative burden on those who would have to administer them, but I think we have met that point. We have made it a simple test of ordinary residence in the country. Further, I think we have been able to deal with his point that administrative difficulties might involve prolongation of the practice of carrying an identity card. That cannot arise because even at present the Minister, in the case of applications for dentures or appliances of one kind or another, requires the production of an identity card. It must be ascertained that a person has not gone to a number of places and obtained a number of subscriptions for sets of dentures or spectacles.
The Minister's vigilant eye has to be turned in the direction of those who make no contribution to the expenses of the scheme. He said that these people make certain contributions by paying indirect taxation, but the great weight of that taxation is escaped by them. The amount may not be great, but it is felt to be an anomaly which, in our present straitened circumstances, should be removed. It is an anomaly which could be removed without difficulty. We have given full latitude to the Minister to prescribe conditions by means of regulation. A number of visitors from America and elsewhere are insured. It would be easy for them to pay a charge, and all the Minister is doing by not charging anything is to relieve the funds of certain large insurance companies abroad. I am sure that this is not a line which he would wish to follow.
The Minister has been so impressed by this argument that he himself has taken steps to deal with it, though we contend that those steps are of an indefensible character. He stated at a Press conference, and his words were subsequently broadcast, that he had arranged for immigration officers to turn back aliens who were coming to this country to secure benefits of the Health Service—

Mr. Bevan: For the purpose of securing them.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Devil himself cannot detect the mind of man, yet this burden is placed on the immigration officers. To place this duty on them is placing an entirely unheard of responsibility on them; it is asking them to carry out duties which they are in no way competent to do.

Mr. Bevan: It is the normal thing for the immigration officer to ask immigrants what is their intention in visiting this country.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Minister has a powerful and able wrist, but he is flagging this evening in dropping his guard to an extent to which he would not drop it if he fully applied his mind to the subject. Does he suggest that any alien coming to this country for the purpose of carrying out a fraud on the Revenue would volunteer a statement to that effect to the immigration officer?

Mr. Bevan: That applies to every other question which is put.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman has himself at times animadverted on the singular folly of the questions put by immigration officers and to which affirmative answers are expected, notably the one in America, "Is it your intention to overthrow the constitution of the United States?" the suggestion being that the answer would be "Yes," thus leading to the instant rejection of the immigrant.
Here we have an opportunity of removing this question from those which the officer has to ask. I wonder whether, in these circumstances, the late Lord Snowden would have ever got into any country at all. Anybody with his obvious physical defect would be held by an immigration officer to be likely to be coming into the country for the purpose of obtaining treatment. Will it be said to me on shore, when I have been hanging over a ship's rail, after a rough crossing, "You are entering the country for the purpose of benefiting under the scheme"? I have seen many of my fellow passengers in this position.
I ask the Minister to consider whether he has not admitted a wrong and is choosing an impossible administrative vehicle for correcting it. He says it is not desirable that people should come into this

country solely for the purpose of obtaining benefits under the scheme. Surely, the proper person to examine and discuss that matter is one with medical skill, to whom the visitor would eventually apply. What would have been the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Swiss frontier if such a set of questions had been asked of him? This would happen if the Minister tried to make the Service free, without any check at all. There has been produced a new kind of check administered in a new way by people who are not suitable to administer it. The proper person to check whether someone applying for medical assistance is genuine is one with proper qualifications. I do not believe that an immigration officer is the kind of person to judge.
We propose a solution here which would meet the difficulty which the Minister himself has agreed. It would meet it in a practical way. The Minister could allow a person who was seeking assistance to pay a sum according to circumstances which the Minister would determine. He could get rid of the difficulties of the foreign seaman whom it was desirable to treat in an emergency, or somebody in poor circumstances to whom there could be no objection on humanitarian grounds. These are all left in the hands of the Minister. What we say is that the difficulty is here. The Minister has produced a solution, which we contend is ineffective as a solution, and what we propose would have in addition the advantage of relieving the financial strain upon the National Health Service, an ideal which the Minister himself has held out to us as being a very desirable one, and one which should be brought forward by the Opposition. Having, therefore, fulfilled all these criteria, we trust that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept the new Clause.

Mr. Bing: Earlier on, when we were discussing other matters, there was some discussion on ethical values, and in the course of some researches, which I happened to be making in the Library on another matter, I came across an old Book in the reference department, which contained a passage from which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite and probably some of his friends, who have put this case in a much more raucous manner than


he has done, probably drew their moral. The passage in this particular Book dealt with a stranger and foreigner who was on a journey to a place called Jericho. In the course of this journey he fell among thieves and was wounded and left for dying. Then it happened that two members of the ruling class passed, and they, realising that in the interests of national economy they should restrict their personal expenditure, passed him by on the other side. It happened that a little later there came some untutored fellow from an outlandish part—

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us whether that untutored man asked the Immigration Officer, who examined this injured man, if he had pronounced upon his fitness for relief?

Mr. Bing: That part of the story is left untold. This untutored person from, I suppose, what would roughly correspond in the Palestine of those days to Wales in this country, without making any proper inquiries at all as to the origin of the stranger, stooped and at once gave him medical attention. Not only that, but he made a small monetary payment towards his support, and, worse than that, he said—I have taken the exact words:
Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee,
thus leaving the way open for a supplementary estimate. This parable has been quoted time and time again to show the contrast between the prudent conduct of the ruling class and the reckless extravagance of this ordinary man, who was prepared to squander not only his own money, but that of his fellows on helping a mere stranger.
It is, after all, purely a question of principle, because the amount involved through providing strangers with medical attention does not come to a very big amount. I do not know whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has looked into the figures, but there are about 635,000 visitors to this country in the course of a year, and on an average they stay rather less than a month, so that would make it that on a whole they would be equivalent to a population of round about 50,000 extra people requiring the

health services, and the cost, even supposing they made the same demands as the people in this country, would be somewhere between £200,000 and £250,000.
In order to exclude these people, the very machinery that would be required to insure the presentation of identity cards would, in itself, involve an administrative cost that was probably as great as, if not greater than, the cost of the health service. What would be said by hon. Members opposite if somebody came along needing urgent treatment, and because his or her identity card could not be found he or she would have to be denied the service? This service would be denounced by hon. Members opposite. What would happen if we did not treat any of our visitors from the Dominions or from the United States? What would hon. Members say then?

7.15 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not think the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) is doing himself justice. He should read the powerful remarks of the Minister of Health on this subject, where he says
… if a foreign visitor or a British visitor falls ill he immediately goes along, if he wishes, to a general practitioner, and if he wishes to take advantage of the Service he must enter into a contract with that practitioner, who must sign a form, and the local executive council must agree with it and approve it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B; 6th July, 1949, c. 158.]
These are the steps which have to be taken now.

Mr. Bing: That may well be, and I should think it is proper. I am glad that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman refutes the more inescapable statements which appeared in some newspapers which, at any rate, nominally support his side, that this Health Service is being wantonly squandered on foreigners. They are subject to the same obligations as people in this country.

Mr. Bevan: As temporary visitors.

Mr. Bing: As my right hon. Friend says, as temporary visitors. Is not really the basis of it—and I do not blame the right hon. and gallant Gentleman because I think he was extremely moderate—a general complaint and a general attack on foreigners, rather a sort of thoughtless attack that the foreigners are doing us


out of something? It is rather a peculiarity in some people's mind that that is the way we ought to behave to foreigners. There is a class of person in this country who, instead of extending the warm hand of friendship, will if possible present the cold muzzle of the dog in the manger. There is no question, after all, from hon. Gentlemen opposite of any economies in the Health Service. That is not their object, because if one reads a document entitled, "The Right Road for Britain," which I understand has, at any rate, the support of some hon. Members opposite, they will see very interesting proposals for giving free medical treatment to people who are well enough off to pay for a private medical service. In other words, hon. Gentlemen opposite, while they would be prepared to save £250,000, would, at the same time, be prepared to spend on the wealthy an extra sum of £5 million.
Visitors to this country are not, after all, all wealthy people. Visitors to this country, one is glad to think, are very often poor people, delegations of ordinary working people and such like. There is no reason at all why these people should not be given an opportunity of experiencing something which is now a National Health Service and part of our national life. Hon. Members opposite quite often spend their time decrying this country, and putting forward all sorts of reasons why people should not visit us because, so they say, they cannot get the same sort of food as can be obtained in other places or cannot get this or that. But when there is an actual service, which visitors can enjoy, then they suggest that we should cut them out. In fact, what they would be prepared to do is, in order to save one-tenth of the money that they spend on rich people, to deprive us of giving to the ordinary man or woman from other countries who comes to this country the same sort of service as our people enjoy. I hope my right hon. Friend will not give way to that.
If there is any abuse of the service by foreigners—and there may be some—that abuse must pass through the practitioner. Therefore, if there is any charge to be made it must be against the practitioner, for the charge made that foreigners are exploiting the Health Service means that they are only exploiting

it by the connivance of the medical profession in this country. This, if it is the charge made by hon. Members opposite, is a far more serious charge than that made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Baird), for which he was reproved by hon. Members opposite. But I do not believe that that is so. I do not believe that there are all these abuses.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) has described what a paradise other countries are compared with his own, and it is a little odd that from these paradises, as described by the right hon. Gentleman, there should be this pathetic stream of people in search of glasses, teeth and all the rest of it. There may be some impoverished nobleman from some other country who may think it possible to pick up an eyeglass here on the cheap, and if, in fact, that is so, it is very desirable that we should deal with it by regulation. This country has a great reputation for the hospitality of the ordinary men and women of the country. I do not think many people grudge the way in which we give to foreigners who are visiting this country the Health Service that we ourselves enjoy. I hope that, while my right hon. Friend will deal with abuses, he will preserve the reputation for hospitality which this country so rightly deserves.

Mr. Bevan: I am very glad that this subject is being discussed in the atmosphere which exists in the Committee, and which is very different from the kind of climate of opinion which irresponsible newspapers try to create around some subjects and irresponsible speakers also attempt, when they address mass meetings and do their utmost to denigrate the Health Service, while pleading at the same time that they are supporters of it. It has been rather sickening in the last 15 months to witness members of the party opposite trapesing around the country, following their extensive posters on the hoardings saying that they fought for the Health Service, yet spending most of their time on the platform poking fun at it, denigrating it and undermining it. This subject is one of the categories under which that has been done.
It amazes me that we should assume that there is something wrong in treating


a stranger who is visiting this country with medical attention if he or she falls sick. That assumption is one of the curses of modern nationalism. It was not part of the ethics of mediæval society or of the Dark Ages. Any person wandering about the Continent of Europe could seek the sanctuary of the Catholic Church and get treatment. It was never considered at that time to be wrong that a sick person should receive the hospitality, medicaments and skilled attention that were available at the time. The present attitude is a by-product of the existence of the Conservative Party.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that was a reciprocal arrangement?

Mr. Bevan: No.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Oh, yes. The Catholic Church was not a narrow nationalist church. It existed in all countries. It was done under a reciprocal arrangement. Reciprocal arrangements are specifically provided for in the proposed new Clause.

Mr. Bevan: I thought I had reached that part of the argument just now. I did not know that there had been any contract drawn up between high contracting parties in mediæval Europe, sitting as a sort of Council of Nice, deciding what service they should give each other if they happened to wander into each other's countries. It was regarded as part of the normal conduct of a citizen.

Colonel Dower: Mutual hospitality.

Mr. Bevan: Certainly it was regarded as hospitality but not necessarily as mutual.
No convent or hospice at which a traveller presented himself for lodging or treatment in the way of nursing, asked: "If we went to your country would they do this for us?" They did not even know about that. They did it as part of normal behaviour. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) that one of the anti-foreigner complexes that insular parties like the Conservative Party can stir up from time to time has been responsible for this agitation.
I have tried to point out on a number of occasions that if we set an example

of this sort in this country there is every prospect that other nations will follow. Somebody must start. The health services of the whole world are being stimulated by what is happening in Great Britain. It is astonishing—I do not know whether hon. Members are aware of this—to witness the constant stream of visitors to this country coming from all parts of the world to find out what we are doing in this matter. Most of them go back praising what is happening and hoping that what we are doing will succeed so that they can imitate it in their own countries.
If people come here from abroad for the purpose of exploiting the Health Service that is a different matter entirely. They ought not to be allowed to exploit it any more than a person in this country. If, for example, a person leaves another country deliberately for the purpose of going to Roehampton to get an expensive artificial limb, I would consider that to be an abuse and not a proper thing to do. Unless we stop that sort of thing we shall be drained.
If a person comes to this country and falls sick, it is perfectly proper that he should be treated. Indeed, some of our great institutions always did so. The great Scottish hospitals treat visitors freely. Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that we should turn our backs on that splendid tradition and set the almoner at work upon people who, for generations and even for centuries, have been enabled to enjoy these benefits? The same thing is true of many of our great London hospitals. Until quite recently a very large number of them were following that tradition. It is only in recent years when revenues have fallen drastically and the costs of health ministration have been raised very substantially, that they have found it necessary to make charges at all.
It seems to me that the complaints—I am not making accusations against the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, because the façade presented this evening is one of comparative benevolence—conceal the grinning visage of malice.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: No more poniards?

Mr. Bevan: It is part of the duty of the House to deprecate the irresponsible propaganda which has been created


around this issue and to try not to pander to the worst appetites of people but to elevate them to a higher standard of citizenship.
The second point is that even if we wanted to withdraw this decent altruism the expense of doing so might be very substantial indeed. The administrative apparatus that we should have to establish would be very considerable. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman shakes his head. I assure him that under his proposed new Clause we should have to divide applicants for medical assistance into three categories. They would be those who came from countries with which we had reciprocal arrangements, those from countries with which there were no reciprocal arrangements and, lastly, our own people. Obviously, if we have reciprocal arrangements we shall merely reciprocate. We shall provide merely according to the reciprocal agreement. Let me put a case in point. If one country was only able to give our citizens bare hospital treatment, should we make available to their citizens the full range of the Health Service of this country? That would not be reciprocity, because it would go beyond reciprocity.
7.30 p.m.
Therefore, it would be necessary to have at least three classifications. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman shakes his head. Suppose that a person turns up at the dentist. He does not go to the dentist from the G.P., so there is no complication to start with. The man probably has an aching tooth, and the dentist says, "What is your name and address? How long have you been in this country? Where did you come from? Are you French? We have a reciprocal arrangement with France for hospitals only and not dentistry. With Belgium we have a reciprocal arrangement for dentistry as well. Or are you English? "By the time all these questions are asked and answered the poor man would be mad with pain.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Really, really.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says, "Really, really," but this point—some of my hon. Friends might call it the point of production—is the one at which the operation has to take place. That is the first time it

happens and that is where the screening would take place. The dentist would have to satisfy himself whether the person was a proper applicant for free dental treatment or not.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The dentist has to do that now.

Mr. Bevan: No. What happens now is that each person has to have a number—for convenience it is the registration number—for classification purposes. If registration were withdrawn some other number would have to be found, but it would be for classification and not for identification purposes. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is confusing identification with classification. In this case the applicant would have to prove that he belonged to a particular class. The same thing is true about the general practitioner. We made arrangements with the medical profession—I apologise for speaking at length but there is such misunderstanding about the subject that I think I am entitled to be detailed—for them to accept collective responsibility for the population of Great Britain. It was a very important principle because it enabled us to deal with our mobile population; that is to say, we could deal with such people as visitors to the seaside. Such cases are met out of a general pool because these visitors who fall ill at the seaside are on the lists of other doctors and we had to have arrangements for them to have access to doctors at the seaside.
We therefore have the temporary visitor form, the purpose of which is to enable the doctor to claim his fee, not to screen the patient. The doctor satisfies himself that the patient needs attention. The form is for the purpose of enabling the doctor to recover the payments to which he is entitled from the general pool. It is not a form to discriminate between classes of people. Immediately that is introduced there must be more forms so that the doctor may be able to reject persons who cannot satisfy him, and, of course, if the person who comes to Great Britain can tell a lie to the immigration officer, so can the person who is ill and goes to the doctor. A lie can be told on a form just as well as by word of mouth. The same answer holds good.
I do not suggest that there are no circumstances in which regulations can be made for the purpose of preventing people abusing the service, but I am not prepared to establish administrative arrangements which would harass the whole population merely to deal with a handful of people who were visiting this country and might need treatment. Hon. Members will agree that we ought to examine each regulation and each protection on its merits and not have a general principle saying that no one visiting this country shall have access to the free Health Service. [Interruption.] Is that not what the Opposition want? I should like to know. It is a very important point.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is the Minister who says that somebody visiting this country must not have access to the Health Service. We say that the Minister should have power to make regulations by which the examination could be carried out by the medical man instead of the immigration officer, who is most unsuitable.

Mr. Bevan: Must the regulation start with the principle that the free Health Service is withheld from visitors? That is the important point.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Our Clause is simple. It says:
Regulations may provide for such charges as may be prescribed to be made to persons not normally resident in the United Kingdom. … Regulations may provide that in such cases as may be prescribed the charges may be made and recovered by the person providing the services.
We are offering the Minister discretion—at present he has no discretion—to recover charges which he admits should, in many cases, be recovered.

Mr. Bevan: That does not answer my point at all. I want to know what obligations the passing of the Clause would impose on the Government. It is clear that we want to have power to make charges in certain cases or to withhold service, but I want to know if we are to begin with the assumption that the regulations must deny, if they can be made to deny, to all visitors access to the free Health Service.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not wish to delay the House but the Minister asked the question. The assumption behind the

Clause is that in cases where people have not paid for the service—this is not a free health service, as the Minister will agree; it is a service paid for by the inhabitants of these islands—it is reasonable that they should make such payment.

Mr. Bevan: In other words, the Clause would impose on the Minister the responsibility for making regulations to recover from overseas visitors a charge for the use of the Health Service. I say at once that that is absolutely and utterly impracticable. Not only is it impracticable but, as I said earlier, it would be turning our back in the National Health Service on centuries of British tradition. In fact, it would be worse than the situation was before.

Colonel Dower: Cannot the Minister take power to prevent abuses?

Mr. Bevan: I can take power to prevent abuses in certain ways such as I have already described. When persons come to this country deliberately for the purpose—that is the point—of getting artificial limbs, I think we can prescribe regulations which will not harass others, but where a person comes to this country deliberately for the purpose of having spectacles—

Mr. Lipson: Does not the Clause give the Minister discretionary power? It says not "shall provide" but "may provide."

Mr. Bevan: We want to be quite honest about this. I must not give the House the impression that it is either desirable or practicable to insist upon a charge being made to all and every user from abroad of the British Health Service. I must be quite clear on that point.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Will the right hon. Gentleman say under what section of the principal Act he has power to impose a charge on someone who comes here deliberately to get treatment?

Mr. Bevan: I have not got the power. I have not said I have. Because we knew that there were certain people who believed that they could get things in this country merely by coming here, we used, not a very dexterous or very good—

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: They may lie.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must not be so jejune. We


brought in a great Act of Parliament and as time went on we discovered certain abuses, and we are proposing to deal with them. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must not assume that everybody tells lies to the immigration officers. In fact, some people have come to this country believing that they could have certain things if they came here, without any question of defrauding the country. People have informed the immigration officers that they came to Great Britain to get certain things. It is not true to say that all men are liars in this case. I have too great a respect for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to believe that he has always moved in company like that. I know he has not. People do tell the truth sometimes, and they have told the truth in these instances, and certain people have therefore been prevented from making improper use of the Health Service.
I cannot accept the form of words suggested in the Clause because it says:
Provided that this section shall not apply to any person normally resident in any country with which His Majesty's Government have made … reciprocal arrangements.
We must have a little more latitude there to frame our regulations in the nature of the reciprocal arrangements made. Furthermore, unless we are careful we shall find ourselves denying the Health Service to many Britishers not normally resident in the country. So what I am proposing to do in another place is to take power to frame regulations where "it may be practicable so to do" to prevent abuse of the Health Service in this country by overseas visitors. I define "abuse" as being people who deliberately come to this country for the purpose of making use of the Health Service. However, there is this qualification, that I shall not take power in such a fashion as to worry large numbers of British subjects merely in order to find a few needles in the haystack. I do not think the House would want me to do that.
I hope, therefore, that the Opposition will withdraw the new Clause in the light of that statement because it solves nothing. It merely shifts the problem from a statute to regulations. What we ought to do is to look at the regulations when they are issued to see how far they

go towards meeting the difficulties of certain cases. However, I must not be understood to be accepting the principle that it is desirable that any person in this country, not a resident in this country, who falls sick ought to pay a charge for the use of all or any part of the Health Service.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We find ourselves mostly in this Debate in strange accord with the Minister on his conclusions and in strange disaccord with the Minister in his arguments. The Minister offers a form of words which will go some way at any rate towards meeting the objective which we had when we set down these words upon the Order Paper. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman says he will do it in another place, which is to say that this is not the last opportunity the House will have of considering the matter, because obviously this House will have an opportunity of either accepting or disagreeing with an Amendment made in another place when it comes down, and we shall be able to see it on the Order Paper and examine it.
Certainly I would be the last to cast back any convergence of views between the Minister and ourselves. Several times tonight the Minister, though arguing vigorously against us, has eventually turned up on our side in the Lobby—[An HON. MEMBER: "In the Lobby?"] In the spiritual lobby. That ghostly lobby, that powerful lobby in which his ectoplasmic self succeeded in defeating the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Baird).
We have an admission by the Minister that here is an abuse. That is the first point of comment. Secondly, he proposes to deal with it and submit words to make an Amendment to the Bill. Very well, I recommend my hon. and right hon. Friends here to accept that and to see what the position is when the Amendment of the Minister is tabled and discussed in another place, and when it finally returns to us here. I will leave the Minister to discuss with his hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and others the parable of the Good Samaritan and the many other edifying things which were talked of earlier on this evening, including the Minister's account of the charitable arrangements of the Middle Ages. I would recommend him


to study the rules and orders of the various friars who dealt with those things, because I think he will find that their duties were definitely international and it was understood by every member exactly what those duties were in every country.
For that matter, we can leave both mediaeval history and mediaeval theology for tonight and I now beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(PUBLICATION OF PARTICULARS OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION.)

Regulations may authorise the Minister, if he thinks fit, to publish particulars of any disciplinary action taken by him in respect of any breach of any Regulation under the Act of 1946 or the Act of 1947, including the name and address of any person in respect of whom such action is taken and the name of any Executive Council recommending such action.—[Mr. Marlowe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The point which this Clause raises is a short one and arises from practical experience. I understand that recently a practitioner was dealt with by way of disciplinary action by an executive council and, as hon. Gentlemen will agree, one of the most important sanctions in any form of disciplinary action is the publicity which goes with the matter. It appears that this practitioner having been fined the maximum amount of £100 for a serious breach of the Act—that is, for what is called "infamous or scandalous conduct" under the Act and for deceiving innocent patients—it was found not practicable to publish the name of this offender in the Press. The reason, as I understand it, was that there was some fear that if the name were published and if the nature of the offence and the fine were disclosed, the executive council might find themselves laid open to an action for libel.
The House will agree that it is desirable that when these offences are committed full publicity should be given so that the offender may be discouraged from repeating the offence, and the public may be warned against the person who is capable of committing such an offence.

This Amendment is designed to meet those circumstances so that, if the name of the offender is published under the direction of the Minister, the executive council would be protected against any libel action and full publicity would be given. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the objective is a desirable one and that he will be prepared to accept this Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. Bevan: I appreciate what the hon. and learned Member has in view in moving this Motion. As he says, there is a difficulty at the moment. If we publish there is no statutory immunity against an action for damages. However, I have looked at the proposed new Clause several times and have come to the conclusion that it is too heavy a hammer for this nut.
First, we must distinguish between two different kinds of tribunal. There is the central tribunal, which is a judicial body, against which an appeal can lie to the Minister. There we have the proper form of procedure. In that case the decisions are published and both the name and the penalty. In the case of the local committees, however, the procedure is not so formal, it is not so judicial, and it does not seem to me that the name of the offender and the punishment should be published, because it cannot be said in such instances that the full panoply of the judiciary has given protection to the person involved. The local Press publishes the fact that there has been a case and publishes the details of the punishment or the fine, as the case may be, but not the name. As a general rule I suppose the name is known to the local population and, therefore, the utmost deterrence is achieved. If, however, in minor offences, where the fine is small because the offence is trivial—

Mr. Marlowe: Would the right hon. Gentleman forgive me for interrupting? He has referred to minor offences. This case was a conviction for flagrant breach of the regulations and taking advantage of innocent patients to obtain additional fees for work which could have been done under the National Health Service. I would not have thought that was a minor offence.

Mr. Bevan: By "minor" I mean offences distinct from those which are brought to the central tribunal. In the case of the central tribunal the offending person may be removed from the list, but with the local tribunals more limited punishments are meted out. It seemed to me undesirable that the name of the general practitioner, the dentist, the ophthalmic optician or the chemist who has been before the local tribunal should always be published in the local Press, no matter what was the nature of his offence. That seemed to me to be going a little further than was necessary. It would cause hardship and hurt to individuals who might have been guilty of a thoughtlessness or something of that sort, about which they had been pulled up by the local tribunal, and they might find themselves chided by their friends and pointed at in the streets. The existing machinery is working fairly well and I would be content with leaving full publicity to the decisions of the central tribunal only, concealing the personality of the offender who has appeared before the local tribunal. I hope the hon. and learned Member will agree.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause 20.—(PAYMENT BY LOCAL HEALTH AUTHORITIES OF CERTAIN REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES TO MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS.)

Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, in page 19, line 10, after "or," to insert:
in respect of an examination carried out or any certificate or recommendation given.
The purpose of this Amendment is very simple. It is that medical officers of regional hospital boards or teaching hospitals should not be paid for examinations or certificates of mental patients carried out in the ordinary course of their duties.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23.—(MINOR AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL.)

Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, in page 20, line 24, to leave out "and Maternity Homes."
This is a drafting Amendment.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: On referring to the Act referred to, I found that it includes the words
and Maternity Homes.

Can the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, explain why it is desirable that these words should now be left out?

Mr. Bevan: Because of various repeals, the Midwives Act, 1926, is the measure to which reference should be made.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 20, line 36, leave out "and Maternity Homes."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Schedule.—(MINOR AMENDMENTS OF THE ACTS OF 1946 AND 1947.)

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: I beg to move, in page 22, line 9, at the end, to insert:
In subsection (2) of section five (which provides for accommodation for private patients), leave out the words 'serving whether in an honorary or paid capacity on the staff of a hospital providing hospital and specialist services to make arrangements for the treatment of his private patients either at that hospital or at any other such hospital,' and insert 'to make arrangements for the treatment of his private patients at any hospital providing hospital and specialist services.'
The Amendment will not add any cost to the hospital services and will, in fact, if accepted, reduce the cost of these services. At present anyone entering a pay bed of a hospital—by "pay bed" I mean a Section 5 bed, not an amenity bed—must be cared for by either one of the honorary staff or one of the residential staff of the hospital. It is not possible for a general practitioner who has been treating a patient, or even an outside specialist, to continue looking after that patient should he obtain admission to one of these pay beds. As the Minister said, there are advantages, both in investigation and diagnosing and in providing treatment, which can be provided by hospitals but not by nursing homes.
The Act prevents a patient from being looked after by his own doctor and receiving the appropriate treatment or investigation. I cannot believe this to be an advantage to the National Health Service. It should be advantageous for general practitioners to care for and treat their cases even after admission to hospital. It is, in fact, a degrading aspect of their work that they should be prevented from treating their own cases in hospital. If they are able to do so, it should be possible for them to provide this treatment.
The fact that patients who go into pay beds cannot be looked after by their own doctors throws an extra burden on the specialist and residential staffs of the hospitals. The hospitals have borne, probably, the greatest burden of the National Health Service, but this would be relieved to some extent by permitting general practitioners who are not members of the hospital staffs to care for their patients whilst those patients are occupying pay beds.
I shall not suggest to the House all the different types of cases in pay beds which could be treated by general practitioners, but I will mention just one—the maternity case. Some parts of the country have no maternity hospitals with pay beds; there may not, in fact, even be a maternity hospital. The only pay beds available are in the small general hospitals. Quite often a practitioner wishes to treat his own patient, probably for the first confinement or for a subsequent confinement following a very difficult one. The patient who goes into one of these pay beds, however, must be looked after by either the general surgeon or physician or the resident doctor of the hospital who, in many cases, knows much less about maternity than the general practitioner.
The Amendment would improve the National Health Service by enabling these patients to be cared for in hospital by their own medical practitioners. Such a course would ensure greater use of the pay beds and would make a financial contribution to the hospital service. In addition, it would retain what the Minister has always said he wished to retain: a free choice of doctor by the patient.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to second the Amendment.
The Minister's apparent policy is to discourage private nursing homes, and there is agreement between us on either side of the House in that policy. Such a policy, however, could be used for the purpose of killing off private practice altogether. I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has that intention, but that process could happen in two ways. If there were no private nursing homes, and if the only hospitals where patients could be treated were public hospitals within the service, we could, by eventually eliminating private pay beds, make

it impossible for doctors to provide private hospital service. That aspect was discussed on an earlier Amendment and I do not propose to say more about it now.
Private practice is also likely to be killed by denying access to private practitioners to public hospitals. By "private practitioners" I do not mean doctors completely outside the Service, but those treating private patients. Obviously, if doctors cannot treat their own private patients in any hospital or nursing home, we are half-way towards completely killing private practice. The right hon. Gentleman has declared that it is not his policy to kill private practice but it is clear, I am sorry to say, that that is not the view of some of those behind him. Let the Minister and those of us on this side who are agreed on the undesirability of killing private practice accept the Amendment.
8.0 p.m.
There is a real feeling in the medical profession that they are being divorced from access to hospitals. I am not saying that that feeling is fully justified, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in speaking to doctors whom I meet casually as friends, at work and in my constituency, I find a large number who hold no strong political views expressing the view that they are being cut off from the kind of access to hospitals which they enjoyed in the past. In this Amendment we seek to put that right.
It is most urgent that doctors should not be given that impression, or that, if it is the intention to kill private practice, it should be stated so that we know where we are. If it is the desire that doctors should continue to have a right to practice privately and to take fees from patients, we must give them a full and proper opportunity to do so. Unless we give them the opportunity provided in this Amendment, we shall be depriving them of a measure of freedom, which will interfere with their general efficiency.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept this Amendment in favour of which quite plausible arguments have been adduced. When the main Measure was going through Committee upstairs, the right hon. Gentleman held very forcibly that there should be a strong line


of demarcation between the general practitioner and the specialist. His intention was to divide the sheep from the lambs, as it were, into completely different categories. Since then the right hon. Gentleman, to his credit, because he has a very buoyant mind, has modified his views in regard to that aspect of the Act. That has been exemplified by a recent circular distributed by his Department to the hospitals urging that more facilities should be given for general practitioners, particularly in cottage hospitals and smaller provincial hospitals, to practise in those hospitals.
This, I take it, refers particularly to that minute section of the population, according to the right hon. Gentleman only 5 per cent. of private patients still available to National Health Insurance practitioners. It would be rather a pity if any facilities which can be afforded should be denied them in maintaining what was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman from the beginning and what he assured the medical practitioners of this country was his intention, that the rights of private practice should still be available and that they should have an opportunity to carry on in that respect within the framework of the Act. I hope he will see his way to accept the Amendment, which is a reasonable one in present conditions.

Mr. Messer: That which has been said in support of the Amendment is not apparent in the wording of the Amendment. There is an immense amount of value in what has been said and at some time we shall have to give serious consideration to it. I think it would be generally accepted that if this Service is to be a success, we have to be assured not merely of an efficient hospital service, but of an efficient general practitioner service also. I have noticed rather a tendency to exalt the specialist, and I am not so sure that specialisation to the extent to which it appears to be developing in the medical profession is actually a good thing. It might be a good thing if specialisation had a very good general background, and to that extent one must realise that a high standard of domiciliary service is, I will not say of the greatest, but of immense importance.
No barrier should be placed in the way of improving the standard of the

general practitioner. If that means access to the hospital beds, it should be organised in a way that will provide the general practitioner with that contact with hospital work without adversely affecting other aspects of the Service, but, as I read the Amendment, it appears that it would enable something in the nature of an injustice to be done. It would enable a patient to be admitted to hospital by jumping the queue. There are long waiting lists, and once a general practitioner with access to a hospital could get his patient admission more speedily than another general practitioner, another patient would be disadvantaged by having to wait his turn in the queue. I am not unsympathetic towards the reasons advanced for this Amendment, but I could not support the words of the Amendment. I think the matter should be dealt with in a more scientific way than this rather loose, indiscriminate, haphazard and unorganised way.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). I do not know what hospitals there are in his neighbourhood to which general practitioners have access. If there is value in a general practitioner having access to hospitals, it should be arranged that all general practitioners have the same opportunity, but that is not by any means the case. One may travel through the whole of Central London and find there is no cottage hospital or general practitioner hospital; they do not exist. That does not mean to say that the opportunity which might be given to a general practitioner should not be given, but it should be done in a rather different way from the way proposed in this Amendment, which I think is brimful of difficulties in implementation.

Mr. Bevan: I am in fairly general agreement with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer). I believe there has been a tendency to dig too wide a gulf between the general practitioner on the one side and the specialist on the other. If the gulf is to be narrowed, it is not necessary to do it by legislation; that can be done by agreement between the members of the medical profession. As my hon. Friend said, we could not admit the right of a general practitioner with


private patients to have access to hospitals where his colleagues would be denied that right. That would be entirely wrong. Access of general practitioners to hospitals generally is an entirely different matter and a matter for discussion administratively, and not by Statute.
I think we are rather confusing the general practitioner with the specialist. What is really envisaged by the Amendment is that a specialist not in the public service at all would be able to treat his private patient in a hospital. That is really what is behind this proposal and that I consider to be wholly wrong. If a specialist does not want to be in the Health Service and therefore has not attached himself to a hospital, I do not think that he is entitled to use the Health Service. Indeed, I do not believe he would be much good for long if he were not attached to a hospital. It has been common form on both sides of the House this evening that a specialist must have access to the hospital and ought to live in the climate of the hospital as much as possible in order to do his work properly. That is the reason why there has been this argument against certain nursing homes. If, therefore, a specialist is not in the Health Service and is not attached to a hospital, it does not seem to me that he will be a person of permanent value in his particular calling, and he ought not to have the facilities of the National Health Service.
As I said in Committee, I am afraid I am unable to accept this Amendment. I wish further to point out, reverting to the general practitioner, that if the general practitioner is to follow his patient into the hospital where the patient has been entrusted to the specialist we may have, unless we are very careful indeed, a very considerable quarrel as to the claims of both of them to have charge of the treatment of the patient, and between the quarrels of two members of the profession the patient might succumb.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: They do not quarrel outside. Why should they quarrel in the hospital?

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I am a little perturbed by the speech we have just heard. The Minister has talked with his usual vigour about what should or

what should not be permitted to specialists and indeed to general practitioners in the circumstances of the scheme. As I see it, the approach to this question ought to be somewhat different. A hospital, particularly a public hospital under the scheme, is not either a weapon for the Minister to coerce specialists or general practitioners into the scheme or a privilege for the use of specialists or practitioners. It is a convenience for the public, and it is in particular a service to the patient. It seems to me that, throughout the speech to which we have listened, the Minister has utterly failed to realise that matter of fundamental importance.
We are not talking about the rights of specialists or general practitioners; we are not talking about the weapons which must be used to secure the proper administration of the scheme: we are talking about people who are suffering, and the question which we ought to consider is whether those suffering people are better treated inside the public hospital or whether they should have to stay, an unprivileged class, in their own homes. That is the point which the Minister will not face.
Assuming that he agrees with me that if a person is suffering and that if the treatment of that person is better effected in a public hospital that person ought to be allowed to go there, then the right hon. Gentleman must face this further dilemma: either he is to deny that suffering person the right within reason to select his own medical attendant or adviser, or he is not. If he is, then it seems to me that he is breaking one of the fundamental areas of agreement in the scheme, something which has not hitherto been in dispute between the parties. If, on the other hand, he is to allow a suffering person who I understand we agree should be allowed to go to a hospital if treatment is better effected there, to select his own medical attendant, then he has presented no case whatever against the Amendment.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: I am trying to understand the hon. Member. Is he saying that a patient ought to have the right to be treated in a general hospital, whether it be a teaching hospital or not, by the doctor of his choice, that doctor being his general practitioner?

Mr. Hogg: I was making no general observation of that kind. I was seeking to analyse the principle upon which the Minister was opposing this Amendment.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member must be fair. He must not make such charges without substantiating them. He said that the National Health Service should not be used as an instrument to confer or deny this privilege on this or that section of the medical profession. I quite agree with him. He says that it is always the patient one should consider. Does he suggest that the patient should have the right to be treated in any hospital by the general practitioner of his choice, whether that practitioner be attached to the hospital or not?

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to force upon me an extreme conclusion which is not justified by the terms of the Amendment. I was seeking to support the terms of the Amendment, which are far more narrow than the conclusion the right hon. Gentleman was trying to force upon me. Obviously, when we are dealing with a scheme which is limited in its means and necessarily, even now, partly experimental in its character, we cannot carry out the full intentions of our ultimate objectives. I would say that the limitation which ought to be placed upon the right of the private patient in a hospital to be treated by the medical attendant of his choice ought to be a limitation defined by purely medical considerations, and not by political considerations. I include in "political considerations" exactly the kind of argument which the right hon. Gentleman was using, namely, the sort of argument that one does not want to encourage specialists who do not belong to hospitals. That is trying to discipline the medical profession by exploiting the suffering of the patient, and that is what I gathered from his argument. His attempt to cross-examine me has not in the least removed my disquiet.

Mr. Bevan: With permission, and not wishing to be paternal, I would say that the hon. Member ought to understand his subject before talking upon it. He ought not to come into the House and deliver a philippic so full of rotund ignorance as the one which he has just delivered. Would he say that a patient in the public part of the hospital ought

to be allowed to decide whether his general practitioner should treat him?

Mr. Hogg: I think that that is exactly the question that I answered before. I answered it by saying that the limitations on the patient's choice should be determined by medical and not by political considerations.

Mr. Bevan: That is exactly what happens. It has been decided that, except in certain cases of cottage hospitals in different parts of the country, when a patient enters a hospital he is entrusted to the specialist services of the hospital. If a statutory right is given to a general practitioner to enter that hospital and treat a patient, there will immediately be administrative troubles of the greatest possible kind. [Laughter.] The hon. Member laughs, but there are hon. Members behind him who have experience of hospital administration. I am certain that they will tell him that a lot of nonsense is now being talked over there about this matter.
What is desirable is that eventually there should be a closer identification, whether the patients be private or public, between the general practitioners and the work that goes on in hospitals—a far greater identification, and a narrowing, as I said, of the gulf. That is not involved in this Amendment. That ought to be done by progressive professional agreement so as to have co-operation between the specialist and the general practitioner without the claims of one upsetting the status of the other. That is not involved in this Amendment. It goes much further than that, as a matter of act it attempts to confer upon private patients what is not enjoyed by public patients in a public hospital.

Mr. Hogg: I suppose—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): rose—

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am on my feet. I was about to point out that the hon. Member cannot speak a second time.

Mr. Hogg: I was about to raise that point. I understood that the second and third speeches of the right hon. Gentleman were interventions to what I was about to say before I resumed my seat. As one—

The Deputy-Chairman: I must say that it did not occur to me that that was so. It did not appear to be so. If the hon. Gentleman can assure me he had not finished his speech before the Minister spoke, I will permit him to continue.

Mr. Hogg: I certainly object—

The Deputy-Chairman: Will the hon. Gentleman say "Yes" or "No" whether he sat down in order to give way to the Minister, or whether he had finished his speech?

Mr. Hogg: I certainly object to the right hon. Gentleman speaking a second and third time—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman does not even know the Rules of Order. He will not even answer my question. The Minister is not bound, no more is the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment, by the Rules that he must not make a second speech.

Mr. Hogg: With great respect, the Chair has many rights, but they do not include the cross-examination of hon. Members.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must be careful. The Amendment proposed—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order. Cannot we have the position put clearly? I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was interrupting my hon. Friend. If the right hon. Gentleman was making a second and a third speech, ought not he to have the leave of the House?

The Deputy-Chairman: He need not ask the leave of the House. If the hon. and learned Member will look at the Standing Orders he will see that the right hon. Gentleman does not require the leave of the House to make a second, third or fourth speech.

Mr. Bevan: I am bound to say, further to that point of Order, that in asking permission, which I was not obliged to do, I did more than has been done by any right hon. Gentleman the whole evening.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 103: Noes, 253.

Division No. 251.]
AYES
[8.24 p.m


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Haughton, S. G.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Baldwin, A. E.
Henderson, John (Catheart)
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Barlow, Sir J.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Ropner, Col. L.


Bennett, Sir P.
Howard, Hon. A.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Birch, Nigel
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Sanderson, Sir F.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N. J.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Bowen, R.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Scott, Lord W.


Bower, N.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Snadden, W. M.


Butcher, H. W.
Lipson, D. L.
Spence, H. R.


Carson, E.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
McFarlane, C. S.
Stross, Dr. B.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Studholme, H. G.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)



Darling, Sir W. Y.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Donner, P. W.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Marples, A. E.
Turton, R. H.


Drayson, G. B.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wadsworth, G.


Drewe, C.
Mellor, Sir J.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Walker-Smith, D.


Erroll, F. J.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Gage, C.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Nield, B. (Chester)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Glyn, Sir R.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
York, C.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Odey, G. W.



Granville, E. (Eye)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Commander Agnew and


Harden, J. R. E.
Raikes, H. V.
Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport.


Harvey, Air-Comdre A. V.
Renton, D.





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Grey, C. F.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Grierson, E.
Oldfield, W. H.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Oliver, G. H.


Alpass, J. H.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Paget, R. T.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Attewell, H. C.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Austin, H. Lewis
Guy, W. H.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Awbery, S. S.
Hale, Leslie
Pannell, T. C.


Ayles, W. H.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Pargiter, G. A.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Parkin, B. T.


Bacon, Miss A.
Hardy, E. A.
Pearson, A.


Baird, J.
Harrison, J.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Balfour, A.
Haworth, J.
Popplewell, E.


Barton, C.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Kingswinford)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Herbison, Miss M.
Price, M. Philips


Bing, G. H. C.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pritt, D. N.


Binns, J.
Hobson, C. R.
Proctor, W. T.


Blackburn, A. R.
Holman, P.
Pryde, D. J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Blyton, W. R.
Horabin, T. L.
Ranger, J.


Boardman, H.
Houghton, Douglas
Rankin, J.


Bottomley, A. G.
Hoy, J.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Bowden, H. W.
Hubbard, T.
Rhodes, H.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)
Richards, R.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Brown, George (Belper)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Burden, T. W.
Janner, B.
Royle, C.


Burke, W. A.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Sargood, R.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Scollan, T.


Callaghan, James
Jenkins, R. H.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Carmichael, James
John, W.
Segal, Dr. S.


Champion, A. J.
Johnston, Douglas
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Sharp, Granville


Cluse, W. S.
Keenan W.
Shurmer, P.


Cobb, F. A.
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Cocks, F. S.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Simmons, C. J.


Coldrick, W.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Skinnard, F. W.


Collick, P.
Kinley, J.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Collins, V. J.
Lang, G.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Colman, Mist G. M.
Lavers, S.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Cook, T. F.
Leo, F. (Hulme)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Cooper, G.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Snow, J. W.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Leonard, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Leslle, J. R.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cove, W. G.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Sparks, J. A.


Cullen, Mrs.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Steele, T.


Daggar, G.
Logan, D. G.
Stubbs, A. E.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Longden, F.
Swingler, S.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lyne, A. W.
Sylvester, G. O.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
McAdam, W.
Symonds, A. L.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McEntee, V. La T.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Deer, G.
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Delargy, H. J.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Diamond, J.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Dobbie, W.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Dodds, N. N.
McLeavy, F.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Donovan, T.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thurtle, Ernest


Driberg, T. E. N.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Tiffany, S.


Dye, S.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Timmons, J.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Tolley, L.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedweffty)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Usborne, Henry


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Walkden, E.


Ewart, R.
Medland, H. M.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Fairhurst, F.
Mellish, R. J.
Warbey, W. N.


Farthing, W. J.
Messer, F.
Watkins, T. E.


Fernyhough, E.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Watson, W. M.


Foot, M. M.
Mikardo, Ian
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Forman, J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Moody, A. S.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Gallacher, W.
Morley, R.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Gibson, C. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Gilzean, A.
Mort, D. L.
Wigg, George


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Nally, W.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)







Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Yates, V. F.


Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.



Willis, E.
Woods, G. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Wilkins.

8.30 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 22, line 9, at the end to insert:
Subsection (2) of section fourteen (which provides for conditions of service and appointment of medical or dental officers employed on the staff of hospitals providing hospital and specialists services), shall have effect as if the following sub-paragraphs were added:—
'(e) for the establishment of a Central Professional Committee and for the hearing by such committee of appeals from officers engaged in the provision of hospital and specialist services who are dissatisfied with any decision under this subsection of any regional hospital board or board of governors relating to their status;
(f) for the determination by the Minister after consideration of the recommendations of the Central Professional Committee of any such appeal as may be made under the provisions of the last foregoing subparagraph.'
Section 14 of the Act of 1946 provides for the conditions of service of hospital officers, including specialists. Before the Act came into operation, specialists fell roughly into three main groups. There was the most junior group, the house officer. Then there was a middle group, the registrar. Of course, other names were attached to that group at different places but the registrar is perhaps the best name to use when describing that group. The third group comprised the fully qualified specialists.
The remuneration of specialists for the purposes of the Act was a matter considered by the Spens Committee. That Committee reported about the time of the introduction of the Act. It recommended that the specialists should be divided into two main groups the junior of which was to be the registrar group, with a smaller group of fully qualified specialists—the specialist group. The Minister, in his wisdom, has seen fit to divide specialists into three main gradings. He has introduced a third grading—the senior hospital medical officer. Roughly speaking, the gradings are paid on the following basis: the registrar gets from £600 to £1,300 a year; the S.H.M.O. gets from £1,400 to £1,750 a year; and the fully qualified specialist gets from £1,700 to £2,750 a year, plus a very substantial bonus in a limited class of case.
I do not quarrel with the division of specialists into three grades, and I am not in any way objecting to that. What I am concerned with is the question of the actual grading of individuals. Under the regulations which the Minister has made, specialists have to be placed in their appropriate grades by the regional hospital board, or the board of governors in the case of a teaching hospital, for the hospitals to which they are attached, and that is done through the advice of a reviewing committee. If the specialist is dissatisfied with the grade in which he is placed, his only appeal is to the board whose reviewing committee has in fact appointed him, so that the appeal is only back to the same board which has in fact made the original grading. Grading is a matter of vital importance to the specialists concerned, as it not only affects their status and the dignity which they possess among their medical brethren, but it makes an immense difference to their pay. Nowadays, there is no honorary work, so that, whereas in the old days it may not have been a matter of vital importance what he was called, today his career must depend on the grade in which he is placed.
The criticism of the scheme is that a very considerable number of specialists have a sense of grievance in a way that is perhaps inevitable. I am not saying that the grading was badly carried out or that there are a great number of mistakes. I am saying that a great number of those who were graded feel that they have not been properly judged in this matter, and the purpose of our Amendment is to try to do away with that sense of injustice.
One of the reasons why there is a special sense of injustice in this connection is that the grading has been done by the local board of the hospital to which the specialist is attached. Of course, in a sense, a regional board is not a very local body, but the total number of specialists in the country as a whole is not very great, and there is a distinct sense on the part of a number of individuals that they have not been altogether fairly judged by the particular board which had the task of judging their qualities.
The purpose of this Amendment is to give a right of appeal to those who have a grievance. What we suggest is that the Minister should constitute a central appeal committee whose only function would be to deal with the question of status. The House should understand that we are not here concerned with a general discussion of conditions of service. We are not suggesting that the rates of remuneration are too high or too low, or suggesting any machinery for discussing those rates. What we are suggesting is some machinery by which the individual may feel that his own particular status has been fairly assessed, having regard to what has been laid down by the Minister. The central appeal committee would be better than the board for the particular hospital, because it will not be local, and the individual concerned will feel that he has a right of appeal away from people, some of whom may be his own competitors. Again, a central board would have the advantage that it would act as a co-ordinating body in this connection. There is the danger that if we leave this assessment to a number of separate boards they will pursue a slightly different policy which might, in time, diverge a good deal, however careful an eye the right hon. Gentleman keeps on it. With a central body there is no risk of that.
Thirdly, our Amendment provides that the appeal is not to be finally disposed of by this central board; the appeal is to be subject to the Minister's own final approval. He will be able to give the board general directions—as no doubt he has always done in this type of case—and he will have the ultimate responsibility—as he must have—for the policy of the central board as regards the numbers to be put in any particular class, and so on. Therefore, he cannot say that we are here seeking to snatch some financial advantage for those for whom we are pleading in this House. That is not the position at all. All that we are concerned with is to see that these men, who are absolutely vital to the Health Service, start off their careers under the new dispensation with a sense that they have been fairly treated by a fully independent body, and that they have all been assessed throughout the country by the same standard.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I beg to second the Amendment.
I daresay that by now the right hon. Gentleman the Minister is conscious of a very great tide of complaints coming in from consultants and specialists under the National Health Service which all relate to this rather harsh treatment which they have received at the hands of regional hospital boards in having their status downgraded as the result of the Minister's variation of the terms of the Spens Report. I have had a very large number of cases brought to my attention from the Provinces, all of them concerning Fellows of the Royal College of Surgeons, men in general surgery, in anaesthetics, in obstetrics, ear, nose and throat specialists, and so on. They have sent in a remarkable series of supporting testimonials from their teachers in earlier days and from their colleagues in the war period, men from other parts of the country who know them well and who, of course, have had nothing to do with the grading. Had they been on the hospital boards, these men would undoubtedly have maintained the grading to which the persons to whom I am referring feel themselves to be entitled.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) has said, the complaints relate to loss of status, to loss of emoluments, and, I would add, to growing family and personal anxieties about being able in these days to maintain the kind of life which they had built up over a period of 20 or 30 years before the war. In the first place, the complaint is of the original assessment by men who, if I may quote what was said to me in a deputation by the specialists, "are superior persons in the medical fraternity who gravitated to the Metropolis, men who are cut off by many years now from the knowledge of what kind of work is being done in the provinces." If I may actually quote from one communication I have received, it defines the selecting team of assessors on the central hospital board as
men who suffer from the belief that London, in general, and Harley Street, in particular, harbour all but the incompetent nonentities of the specialist branches of medicine.
8.45 p.m.
The trouble is that the initial assessments having been downgraded, the appeal lies through the same body of


men. As I understand it, the complaints that have been coming in are not uniform from all parts of the country, which is clearly an indication that the treatment which the subject has received by the regional hospital boards varies considerably. Some regional hospital boards have perhaps initially graded altogether too high, and intend to downgrade in the interests of economy, later sifting up as time goes on. Other regional hospital boards—I instance the South-Western Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board in particular—seem to have downgraded almost everyone but are allowing certain cases to go through on appeal. I maintain that it is very unsatisfactory that these boards should differ so substantially in their methods. That must make for variations in status as between the different members of the profession.

Dr. Guest: The noble Lord would help the discussion if he informed the House whether he knows that this grading of specialists is done inside the medical profession. I understand that the noble Lord realises that. I should like to know whether he proposes that there should be an appeal from the body inside the medical profession which does this grading work, with the full approval of the medical profession in general, to the Minister.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: No. I do not think the hon. Gentleman can have listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hendon. We all know that the grading is done by members of the medical profession. What we on this side of the House say is that the appeal should be instituted by the man who is downgraded and should lie to a different body altogether.

Dr. Guest: To the Minister?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: No. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who I thought was a specialist in this subject, would be good enough to read the Amendment to which I am speaking.

Dr. Guest: I am trying with great difficulty to follow the noble Lord's obscure speech.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: We get on better outside than we do in the Chamber.

Dr. Morgan: I am sorry to hear that.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The analogy of the Army has occurred to me, and I hope it is not a false one. In the Army, officers who feel aggrieved at their standing have recourse to the Military Secretary's Department. That is one channel of appeal which is quite different from the general chain of command in the Army. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is listening, because what I am saying might indicate certain lines which it might be proper to take. A more interesting channel of appeal is that which is taken on technical lines in the Army. For example, the Commander of the Royal Engineers and his field company commanders are responsible to the divisional general for operations and for discipline. But on all other matters, including appointments, replacements and appeals against unreasonable tasks or orders, the channel is via the Chief Engineer through headquarters upwards to the War Office. The right hon. Gentleman has rushed in with a national medical service formed upon military lines, but he has not yet devised the network of safeguards against falling morale which the Services have been obliged to develop over the course of many years.
No one blames the right hon. Gentleman for having invented a system which is too hierarchical, too rigid and does not allow for complaints to be sifted upwards through alternative channels. The right hon. Gentleman is not a genius. Nobody expected him to devise a perfect system straightaway. But let him have a look at the system in the Services which gives those with a grievance a chance of redress through channels altogether different from the chain of original appointment and command. I think he will find a useful precedent there. Some new machinery is imperative if this quality of the Service is not to deteriorate through the disillusionment and cynicism which is undoubtedly growing in the profession and especially amongst the professional consultants and specialists who have been downgraded. We are not wedded to the actual form we have laid down and if, as he was good enough to do on an earlier Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman would indicate that some appropriate machinery would be introduced in another place, I am sure that would satisfy us.

Mr. Messer: I am certain that no hon. Member would object to the principle of giving a right of appeal to anybody who has a grievance, and I do not want to deal with that aspect of the Amendment. I feel it is necessary, however, for someone to make some reference to the way in which the Amendment has been handled. For those who are not engaged in this work the impression would have been created from the speeches which we have heard that the regional hospital board of about 30 members solemnly sits down and assesses whether or not people shall be specialists. That is not so. No regional board does it; no regional board could do it. The regional board, with a majority of laymen on it, which attempted to do such a thing would find itself in difficulties very quickly.
What does happen? When reference is made to downgrading, could we have some instance of anyone who has been downgraded? The truth is that there were members of the medical profession who regarded themselves as specialists, but is there any hon. Member who could tell me what were the special qualifications one had to have to become a specialist before this Act came into force? What examination was passed? What test was applied? Is there any answer?

Dr. Morgan: Yes; plenty.

Mr. Messer: The answer is that anybody who cared to follow a special branch of medicine became a specialist. Now what happens is this: the regional board chooses from the medical committees certain members who do not make any assessment by themselves but who, indeed, are joined by members of the faculty which is concerned—obstetrician, piedatrician, physician, surgeon, orthopaedist, gynaecologist and all the rest of it—and that particular faculty is represented on a committee. Can anybody say that the regional board is responsible for downgrading specialists when, in point of fact, there never was a grade of specialist which was a grade attained by any examination or training? I agree that there are a large number of those who consider themselves specialists but who have not been accepted as specialists; but to say they have been downgraded is quite an exaggeration. To put a thing like this in a Statute is to go to the extreme.
There are two evils which we should guard against in legislation: one is the Act which leaves too much to regulation and the other is the Act which goes into too great detail. If we go into too great detail we shall want an amending Bill every six months. What we want are general principles within which the Service can be properly administered. The Minister has himself taken steps to see that this work is not done by people not qualified to do it. The medical profession are responsible for this grading, and I think that that should be understood. I rose to speak only because I feel that a disservice is being done to the Service by the criticism made of the regional hospital boards, who have a very difficult job to do. The regional boards have done, and are doing, this job, and it is made more difficult by the type of speech we have heard today. The medical profession have this matter in their own hands.

Mr. Bevan: I do hope that we shall be able to get on a little faster. I hope the next time I introduce a Bill to the House it will be opposed on Second Reading, because, perhaps, it will proceed quicker than one which is unopposed. I say that in passing because we have been a long time on this. I am astonished that the Opposition should have picked on this one. Why do they assume all the time that, because they receive a large number of letters, there is a grievance, and that it is necessarily good politics to play it? That is exactly what they are doing all the time. If a body of opinion in the medical profession is aggrieved by anything, they make themselves the mouthpiece of the grievance.
This Amendment is about the most maladroit one I have ever seen on the Notice Paper—this Amendment which purports to be devoted to the grading of specialists and yet deals with the appointment of persons by regional hospital boards. Section 14 deals with the appointment of persons who have already been qualified. It has nothing at all to do with their status. It is the machinery for the appointment of persons on the staffs of regional boards, whereas the Amendment directs itself to the grading which has been taking place recently of persons in the specialist classes. I do not make much complaint about that because


the Opposition have not the facilities of Parliamentary draftsmen; and I do not make any heavy weather about it at all, because if a principle which is intended to be conveyed is approved, it is up to the Government to cast it into proper language.
The reason I call attention to it is not to score a debating point, but because it has led to confusion of nomenclature. People have talked about the regional hospital boards. Because they make the appointments on the staffs of specialists, it has led to the assumption that the regional hospital boards actually make the classification of specialists. That is what, as my hon. Friend has already pointed out, they do not do. Also the noble Lord in his statement talked about downgrading. There has been no such downgrading. There never has been grading before. When the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) talks about three grades, I must say there was never any such thing. The fact is that a very large number of general practitioners who are members of the Royal Colleges—a very large number—would not dare to describe themselves as specialists.
The difficulty is that we have not got an academic qualification that corresponds in the medical profession to any hierarchical arrangement. That is the difficulty. If, according to the hierarchical conception, the general practitioner is placed down at the bottom, I do not agree with it at all. I do not agree with the hierarchical conception. We insist, and have all the time insisted, that the first-class general practitioner is the cream of his profession. Therefore, we ought not to slip into the language of saying that any person has been downgraded or upgraded in relation to whether he is further from or nearer to the status of a general practitioner. That would immediately poison the whole atmosphere. We have not got a way of climbing up, if I may use the term, to a higher position and to higher emoluments merely by virtue of passing a particular examination.
9.0 p.m.
Therefore, in so far as we are to pay different scales of remuneration for people presumed to have different qualifications, we had to have a classification so that the salary that was to be paid should alight on the proper person, and so that when a

general practitioner sent his patient to a specialist he was really sending his patient to a specialist and not to some person masquerading as a specialist, or some person claiming to be a specialist who was not a specialist. Therefore, the term "specialist" is not necessarily an academic qualification by itself, but implies a person possessing an academic qualification who has made a particular branch of medicine his speciality. Therefore, it is a question of his behaviour and not of his objective qualification; of his behaviour in such a fashion and his performing in such a fashion as to justify himself as being classified as a specialist.
That was the task which I had to perform. To whom was it entrusted? It was entrusted, on the advice of the medical profession, to a purely professional body. No layman can make a classification himself. That is one of the first defects in the Amendment. It really suggests that after the doctors have been classified by their fellows they should appeal to a Minister. I would refuse to accept the responsibility when people interrupt the noble Lord, he must not be so tart with them and ask them to read the Amendment. He seconded the Amendment, and therefore the assumption is that he had familiarised himself with it. It says:
For the determination by the Minister"—

Mr. Henry Strauss: Look at subparagraph (e).

Mr. Bevan: Sub-paragraphs (e) and (f) state:
for the establishment of a Central Professional Committee and for the hearing by such committee of appeals from officers engaged in the provision of hospital and specialist services who are dissatisfied with any decision under this subsection of any regional hospital board or board of governors relating to their status;
(f) for the determination by the Minister after consideration of the recommendations of the Central Professional Committee of any such appeal as may be made under the provisions of the last foregoing sub-paragraph.
If I interpret that correctly, it would mean, first of all, that a person would be subjected to examination by the local medical professional committee, and that, having a grievance against that committee, he would appeal to the Central Professional Committee, and, having a grievance against that Committee, would then appeal to the Minister.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bevan: I should be happy to be made clear on this point. My legal advisers told me there could be no other interpretation of these words and that the Minister would be, in the last analysis, the last court of appeal for the determination of the professional status of a member of the medical profession. I would not dream of doing that. First of all, a lay Minister would be an improper person to whom to appeal. He would not have access to any more professional information than has already been exhausted in determining the status—

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to leaving the final decision to the Central Professional Committee?

Mr. Bevan: I will come to that in a moment. I think the hon. Gentleman will admit that the interpolation of the Minister is a mistake. In fact, the medical profession would be horrified if they thought that His Majesty's Opposition were now asking that a lay Minister, or any Minister, should be allowed to classify specialists in the medical profession.
I will now come to the Central Professional Committee. Everybody, in Great Britain in particular, is always predisposed to the person who wants to make an appeal. Appeal to a higher court against the decision of the lower court until a man has actually reached the supreme court is one of the cardinal principles of British jurisprudence. But here we are not dealing with jurisprudence; we are not dealing with a person's rights under the law. We are here dealing with what I have already described as the proper classification of a person in the practice of his profession in the absence of any objective data, and in order to do that we called into existence a local professional committee, containing all the specialities about which classification is to be made.

Dr. Morgan: One was left out.

Mr. Bevan: Which one?

Dr. Morgan: Industrial medicine.

Mr. Bevan: Let us keep our eye on the ball for the moment.

Dr. Morgan: Do not let us cock our eye at it.

Mr. Bevan: Do not let us wander into alien fields at this moment. Let us keep where we are. We will digest that one when we come to it.
This local committee was, therefore, appointed. I want hon. Members to realise that what we are trying to do is to classify a person, not only in respect of his academic qualifications, which are ascertainable, but also in respect of his behaviour, so that the more local it is—that is the whole point—the more knowledge, the more particular and the more exact. I grant it may also be more prejudiced; there is always that danger. But also remember that, as people are being classified on the grounds of their craftsmanship, the more particular, immediate and precise the knowledge, the more just the conclusion is likely to be, other things being taken for granted. Therefore, it was a local committee that did the classification.
This thing is being done for the first time in the history of medicine, so that we are at the moment denied any precedents and guidance. Therefore, as the first review was bound to be empirical, we decided that a further review should take place. "Review" is the right word; it is not an appeal. If a person wished to have his case reviewed it could be referred to a committee of two people from outside that region, so that they could bring a fresh mind to bear upon what had happened. Now, that has taken place, or is in process of taking place, and it would be a disaster of the worst kind if we churned it all up again after all this has been done.
Hon. Members must bear in mind that, whilst they might satisfy, or hope to satisfy, the small number of persons who would wish to make an appeal, they would dissatisfy a very large number of those who have been established. Hon. Members must not think that they will have praises bestowed upon them. On the contrary. All those people who are now fitting themselves into their positions will feel insecure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because if there is an appeal by the individual to a higher body there must be an appeal against a lower body by the higher body.
In this case, remember, we are not talking about courts. I wish the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) would not scribble so assiduously, because his legal precedents will have no relevance at all to this matter. I hope he will not drag a whole shoal of juridical red herrings across this trail. We are here dealing with practical problems and not academic jurisprudence. If it is possible for the local committee to have made a mistake against which the aggrieved person could appeal, it could also have made a mistake in appointing the other people. In other words, the whole of its findings are exposed to doubt, because if it can be wrong in the ones it refuses to classify, it may be wrong in the ones which it does. Furthermore, this central committee would not be a committee of superior status to the local committee. It would consist of exactly the same type of people, possessed of less knowledge about the individuals concerned than the local committee against which appeal is made.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Not always so very local.

Mr. Bevan: I could not gather from the noble Lord's speech whether he was against or for a central committee. He referred to remoteness, whereas his hon. Friend referred to local prejudice. I am not clear whether the mover and seconder were moving this for the same reason. It does not matter, and it happens quite frequently.
I now there have been hard feelings about this because we are dealing here with people's professional status, with their pride, and the position they occupy in the minds of their fellow craftsmen. Therefore, it is inevitable, having passed through this sieve, that a lot of individuals should have feelings about it. Unhappily that is the case, but the person who has failed to pass an examination has not usually an appeal against those who examined him—he has a grievance, but no appeal, and a sense of grievance is not necessarily entitlement to appeal. Therefore, I should not in this case, if I were the Opposition, throw this apple of discord into the arena just now. It will do no good to anyone, but will merely undo the good work done and be resented by the profession, because they will think that politicians have been having a holiday at their expense.

Mr. Hogg: I was not proposing to enter into any judicial precedents. The object of my notes was to render some sort of protest against the habit of the Minister using words on the precedent of Humpty-Dumpty, making them mean what he wants them to mean—talking about appeals from higher courts back to lower courts. There is nothing particularly commonsense about nonsense, and nonsense is what the right hon. Gentleman was talking in a very great part of his speech. The broad, simple answer to the point he was making was this. His argument appeared to be that because a person turned down was given an appeal, we must necessarily give the classifying body an appeal, or someone else an appeal, when an appointment was made. There is nothing about that in the Amendment. The Amendment provides solely for appeals by persons who are aggrieved.
Until he went off into that fog of verbiage, the Minister was making a rather sensible and valuable speech. In the first place, I was grateful to him for pointing out the drafting defect of this Amendment, that in fact the Amendment is apparently put in the wrong place because local hospital boards were concerned with appointments and not with classification. But no one answered that objection better than the Minister himself, by pointing out the difficulties private Members find in drafting Amendments to complicated systems of legislation; so I do not think we need take up any more time about that.
The real question is a point of principle raised by the Amendment. I was very much impressed by what the Minister said in relation to his own position in the Amendment. I thought that to be a very good point. I thought he was well entitled to say that the classification of specialists was not a matter for which political responsibility ought to be taken by a lay Minister. So far I am rather with him. But, there again, I still did not think he was dealing with the real substance of the Amendment. The interesting question which underlies the Amendment is the administrative machinery which ought to exist for the classification of specialists. It is true, as the Minister says, that there is not—and I rather think there could not be invented—a formal academic qualification which constitutes a specialist. I think it would


be very undesirable to try to invent one even if one could be invented, because all kinds of things may be specialised in for which no formal academic qualification exists or is desirable.
9.15 p.m.
Having assumed that, it becomes an extremely important practical question of how we are to exclude from the circle of specialists those who have no qualification to call themselves such. No doubt all kinds of professions attach to themselves a small minority of people of that kind. The Minister is right in having entrusted the question of classification to a local body. He is correct in saying that the local body can judge practice as well as theoretical qualification and prima facie ought to be given responsibility, but what the Minister has failed to understand is that it is absolutely vital to have a single standard throughout the country for this purpose and that that cannot be obtained by the operations of a local man acting alone.

Mr. Bevan: It is the absence of an objective test that makes impossible the presence of uniformity. It is the professional status of the individual himself in the conduct of his work which constitutes his entitlement to status. Uniformity is, therefore, absolutely impossible.

Mr. Hogg: I quite agree, and that is why I am somewhat surprised that, starting from exactly the same premise, we should arrive at opposite destinations on matters which have nothing to do with our party difficulties.
Having started from the premise that an objective standard is impossible, and having agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that responsibility must lie, in the first place, with the local committee, I think the conclusion which follows is that a central professional body ought to supervise the work of the local committees. I do not think it is impossible to deal with these matters on appeal; I do not agree that what is being introduced is a juridical or legal concept. I can see no reason to suppose that the Central Professional Committee which it is suggested should be inaugurated would be other than a co-ordinating body of practical men, deciding cases on practical principles and evolving a code of practice from case to case which would give the desired uniformity so far as it could be

given. I do not believe that in the long run it is desirable to have a series—I, am not sure that I recollect how many—of local committees all over the country, each independent of the other and unco-ordinated even by political responsibility.
I accept the Ministers word that his new proposal, which is that there should be a review, with two added persons from outside, by the same body which gave the original decision, is acceptable to those concerned. I cannot say what those concerned might think about that, but for my part I am not altogether persuaded that it is an administrative acceptability. I have no doubt that the Minister will consider a more uniform system, but he has not altogether persuaded me that it is not desirable for a purely professional body to overlook the work of the local committees provided, of course, that it confines its attention to appeals from individual cases and thus devolves a sort of case law and not a kind of hierarchical administration with the imposition, with authority, of general principles.

Dr. Morgan: I am very sorry to have to speak now, because the House has been treated to two oratorical displays neither of which I can scarcely hope to equal, but I am speaking because I feel rather deeply on this subject. I have always been in favour of professional reform. I have always been in favour of some recognised scheme by which specialists and the different grades in the profession can be recognised. I have pleaded for this for years, both inside and outside the profession. The public is disinterested in the reform of the profession. People do not care a hoot who calls himself a specialist. I have great sympathy with the Minister, who tonight has been most conciliatory on this most difficult of all problems—the grading of specialists and the recognition of men who are really specialists. This is not a thing for political controversy or, indeed, for professional controversy, but something which requires good will and judgment in order to work out an equitable scheme to meet different conditions in different parts of the country.
While I have considerable sympathy with the Amendment which has been moved, I do not agree with the whole of it. I suggest that we should sit down some time and consider this matter of the reform of the profession from this point of view. Let us take this particular


Amendment. All that is being asked here is that there should be a Central Professional Committee, which would consider cases on appeal and make recommendations to the Minister, who would have the final say in the matter. The Minister, who is always very brave, has become scared at that. He says, "No, this is a professional matter"; but he would be acting on the recommendations of a proper, constitutional professional committee, and I do not see why he should shirk doing the same thing as he does nearly every day.
Whatever the Minister, the Government or the House of Commons may think, there is in the profession and among the most competent specialists in the country a great deal of professional dissatisfaction at the way things have gone so far. I know that the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) has remarked that there was no grading previously. He knows very little about the profession if he thinks or says that. There may have been no recognised grading, but there was plenty of professional grading within the profession, and many a man who failed to get his F.R.C.S. examination, in which there was a certain element of choice as well as learning, did not fail altogether because of lack of learning.
I remember that on the day when I failed in my first primary of the F.R.C.S. examination, one of the examiners pulled me aside and told me, "You did not fail because you did not know the subject, but because you are too keen on Socialist policy." It may be changed now, because Labour has got respectable, but there is a considerable amount of dissatisfaction amongst most highly efficient specialists on the question of grading and the recognition of specialists. I urge the Minister to take some steps in regard to questions within the profession which are binding on the public, because I believe that it is the public who should be the masters of the various professions in this country.
I could say a lot on this subject, but I do not wish to go on too long tonight. I only wish to say that I have considerable sympathy with the underlying basis of the whole idea. Specialists have come to me and I have seen specialists of standing and competence—whom I would trust with my own body or the bodies of those

dearest to me—who are almost emotionally affected by the fact that they are not graded efficiently as compared with some nincompoop in the provinces.
We may say what we like; we may agree or disagree with grading; but the fact is that we have now a good service in the country and hope for better things in the future. We ask the Minister to look at this problem from the point of view of seeing whether something can be done to meet this great difficulty in the profession; to see whether some body, professional or mixed, can be brought into being to clean up the profession and solve the problem in a way pleasing to those most competent within the profession.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I have every sympathy with the Minister in his contention that the Debate has now continued for a long time and therefore I will make him an offer. Let us take the Third Reading without Debate. After all, the essence of this Bill is the bits and pieces. It is a survey piece by piece of a field, and I do not think there is any necessity for a review afterwards of the whole field.

Mr. Bevan: May I say that so far as I am concerned I was hoping to take the Third Reading formally. Of course, we are always in the hands of hon. Members in all parts of the House, and if hon. Members wish to speak, I assume that Mr. Speaker must see them.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It could not be permitted for any of us even in the mildest degree to suggest—whatever other courts of appeal were existing anywhere else—that there was any court of appeal in this House but Mr. Speaker. I would merely say that I think, so far as my hon. and right hon. Friends are concerned, that they would be willing to take the Third Reading formally. But we are not at all sorry that the Debate has continued on several of these points for some length, and indeed on this point which is a very important one.
As the Minister has said, there is no political profit to be made out of it one side or the other. I believe that some people will he satisfied and some people will he dissatisfied but I do not think that we shall make anything out of it. I do believe it is the business of the


House of Commons to ventilate grievances. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) has borne witness, and not merely from a party point of view. He is of the same political opinions as the Minister, and according to his own account has suffered for those opinions even professionally. Therefore we are now discussing an important point. Everyone has pointed out that there was no hierarchy, no fully established hierarchy before. A fully established hierarchy is now being brought into being and this is therefore a new problem.
What is more, it is a problem which will pass, because once the hierarchy has been brought into being for good or ill the steps are established; and now we are attempting to classify a number of persons whose qualifications, as the Minister has truly said, are not academic qualifications, but qualifications of craftsmanship, professional competence, and behaviour. Then we have a very difficult task indeed. I ask the Minister first to consider that point, that a difficult task is there and that difficult task has not, I think, been fully satisfactorily performed up to now.
The next point is this, that we bring forward the suggestion for a central body, a body which at the end of the day advises the Minister who then acts. The Minister says, "You could not have such a thing. Professional men would all be up in arms." He is flanked by two Ministers who are continually receiving appeals and deciding upon them. The Home Secretary is the final court of appeal in this country. The home Secretary has great responsibilities. It may be said, "These are matters of justice, matters of life and death: these are not the sort of matters we are considering."
9.30 p.m.
Let me turn to his left hand side at which is sitting the representative of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Who makes the final appointments for many of the greatest Chairs in Scotland? Who appoints the professor of Greek or the professor of mathematics, the professor of Italian literature or the professor of history? The Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Bevan: He does not determine whether they are to be professors.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: He does. If he makes a man a professor, he is a professor.

Mr. Bevan: The analogy is that the regional hospital board would appoint a person to be a senior surgeon at a particular hospital after that person had been classified as a specialist in a speciality, but it would not determine whether that person should be a specialist in that speciality.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Secretary of State for Scotland can appoint a man, and would appoint him. I have appointed men myself not because they were professors anywhere else but because I thought highly—and was advised by professional men—of their academic qualifications and of their performance. Whether they were professors beforehand or not was of no importance at all.

Mr. Bevan: We do not want to be at cross-purposes. We merely want to be clear here. I want everybody to understand that what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is now pressing upon the House is that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health in England should accept the responsibility, on the advice of a central body, of determining the professional competence of a specialist. That is what he is asking. The analogy he makes is that the Secretary of State for Scotland sometimes appoints a person to a Chair in one of the universities in Scotland, but the fact is that that person would already have reached academic eminence and would already be fully established with his peers before he would be selected from among his peers to occupy the Chair.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: These can only be analogies and to some extent analogies are inevitably misleading. I was pointing out that at the end of the day the responsibility of a layman on high professional advice is admitted in realms quite as important as the realm which we are now discussing. I go no further than that, but that it does exist is true. My hon. Friend the Member for Southern Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) raised the analogy of the Army. That is also an hierarchical body. Believe me, it has been found necessary there to provide some machinery of appeal. The machinery of grading differs slightly in Scotland. In England the appeal committee


is a committee with two more of the speciality concerned added. In Scotland I believe that it is a committee of 14 with one other person added, and it is not necessarily any more satisfactory to those in Scotland than is the English procedure.
I think from all the arguments brought forward tonight that some body which is not the local body, some body where one will not be appealing from a committee to the same committee again with perhaps one or two added members, would be of great advantage if it were only to remove any sense of grievance.
A sense of grievance does exist, and nobody denies it. The Minister asked if we could quote examples, and we have had many examples, but it would not be fair to quote them by chapter and verse. The Minister must take it from us, and, indeed, he can take it from hon. Members on his own side of the House, that many types of people have recently come forward and said they felt a grave sense of uneasiness and dissatisfaction because of an anonymous decision by people whom they could not get at or understand. [Interruption.] The Minister must not pick up small points like that, because I am not using the phrase "get at" in any Stanley-ish sense, but in the sense that a man should not feel that

he is being judged by some one with a coat over his head, or that he should go away thinking that his case has been heard fairly only to find out that the whole thing was quite different.

It is all very well for the Minister to say that some people will always be aggrieved. Of course, they will, but he is dealing with a very important matter here and it is very necessary that he should keep his mind open on the subject. I think he attempts to close it too soon. He says that the whole thing would be churned up. By churning we get butter, and that is better than a jar of sour milk. I am not sure that a certain amount of churning which would get a certain amount of butter would not be better than such unpleasant stuff as sour milk.

I do not think the Minister has dealt fully with this matter, and I must say that unless he can meet us a little further, we shall be compelled to divide the House on this issue. If the Minister cannot meet us, we shall have to register our view that the final word has not yet been said on this matter by carrying the issue into the Division Lobbies.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 97; Noes, 241.

Division No. 252.]
AYES
[9.40 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Harden, J. R. E.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Raikes, H. V.


Baldwin, A. E.
Haughton, S. G.
Renton, D.


Barlow, Sir J.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Bennett, Sir P.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Birch, Nigel
Howard, Hon. A.
Ropner, Col. L.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bowen, R.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N. J.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bower, N.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Scott, Lord W.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Snadden, W. M.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Spence, H. R.


Butcher, H. W.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Carson, E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lipson, D. L.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Sutcliffe, H.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Teeling, William


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Turton, R. H.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
McFarlane, C. S.
Wadsworth, G.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Walker-Smith, D.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Drayson, G. B.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Drewe, C.
Marples, A. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Mellor, Sir J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gage, C.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
York, C.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.



Gates, Maj. E. E.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Nield, B. (Chester)
Mr. Studholme and


Granville, E. (Eye)
Odey, G. W.
Brigadier Mackeson


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.





NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Paget, R. T.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Gunter, R. J.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Guy, W. H.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Alpass, J. H.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Attewell, H. C.
Hale, Leslie
Pannell, T. C.


Austin, H. Lewis
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Pargiter, G. A.


Awbery, S. S.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Parkin, B. T.


Ayles, W. H.
Hardy, E. A.
Pearson, A.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Harrison, J.
Popplewell, E.


Baird, J.
Haworth, J.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Balfour, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Kingswinford)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Barton, C.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Price, M. Philips


Bachervaise, A. E.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Proctor, W. T.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hobson, C. R.
Pryde, D. J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Holman, P.
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Binns, J.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Ranger, J.


Blackburn, A. R.
Horabin, T. L.
Rankin, J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Houghton, Douglas
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Blyton, W. R.
Hoy, J.
Rhodes, H.


Boardman, H.
Hubbard, T.
Richards, R.


Bottomley, A. G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Bowden, H. W.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Royle, C.


Brown, George (Belper)
Janner, B.
Sargood, R.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Scollan, T.


Burden, T. W.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Scott-Elliot, W.


Burke, W. A.
John, W.
Segal, Dr. S.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Johnston, Douglas
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Callaghan, James
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Sharp, Granville


Carmichael, James
Keenan, W.
Shurmer, P.


Champion, A. J.
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Simmons, C. J.


Cobb, F. A.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Skinnard, F. W.


Cocks, F. S.
Kinley, J.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Coldrick, W.
Lang, G.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Collick P.
Lavers, S.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Collindridge, F.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Collins, V. J.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Sorensen, R. W.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Leonard, W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cook, T. F.
Leslie, J. R.
Sparks, J. A.


Cooper, G.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Steele, T.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Swingler, S.


Cove, W. G.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)



Daggar, G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Sylvester, G. O.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Longden, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lyne, A. W.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McAdam, W.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Deer, G.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Delargy, H. J.
McGhee, H. G.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Diamond, J.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Thurtle, Ernest


Dobbie, W.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Tiffany, S.


Dodds, N. N.
McLeavy, F.
Tolley, L.


Donovan, T.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Dye, S.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Warbey, W. N.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Watkins, T. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Medland, H. M.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mellish, R. J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Ewart, R.
Messer, F.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Fairhurst, F.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Farthing, W. J.
Mikardo, Ian
Wigg, George


Fernyhough, E.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Forman, J. C.
Monslow, W.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Moody, A. S.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Morley, R.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Gibson, C. W.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Willis, E.


Gilzean, A.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mort, D. L.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gooch, E. G.
Moyle, A.
Woods, G. S.


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Nally, W.
Yates, V. F.


Grey, C. F.
Naylor, T. E.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Grierson, E.
Neal, H. (Claycross)



Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Oldfield, W. H.
Mr. Snow and Mr. George Wallace.


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Oliver, G. H.



Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, in page 22, line 36, at the end to insert:
In subsection (1) of section thirty-two (which relates to local representative committees) at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the words 'or
(d) of the ophthalmic opticians and dispensing opticians providing supplementary ophthalmic services in that area,'
after 'Local Pharmaceutical Committee' the word 'or' shall be omitted and after the words 'Local Dental Committee' there shall be inserted the words 'or the Local Optical Committee.'
This is one of a series of Amendments. The purpose of this Amendment is to give the local optical committee the same statutory position as is now occupied by the local medical committee, pharmaceutical committee and dental committee. There is nothing controversial about this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 22, line 37, after "of," insert "the said."

Line 37, leave out:
(which relates to local representative committees).

Line 41, after the first "Committee," insert:
or the Local Optical Committee.

Line 44, after the second "services," insert "general dental services."

Line 45, leave out "general dental," and insert "supplementary ophthalmic."—[Mr. Bevan.]

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): I beg to move, in page 26, line 41, at the end, to insert:
In subsection (1) of section thirty-three (which relates to local representative committees) at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the words
'or
(d) of the ophthalmic opticians and dispensing opticians providing supplementary ophthalmic services in that area.'
after "Local Dental Committee," the word "or," shall be omitted, and after the words "Local Pharmaceutical Committee," there shall be inserted the words "or the Local Optical Committee."
This is the corresponding Amendment, dealing with the Scottish position, to the Amendment which has just been moved by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 26, line 42, after "of," insert "the said."

Line 42, leave out:
(which relates to local representative committees).

Line 46, after "Committee," insert "or the Local Optical Committee."—[The Lord Advocate.]

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 27, line 1, after the first "services," to insert "pharmaceutical services."
This is a drafting Amendment consequential on the Amendment which I have just moved.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 27, line 1, leave out "pharmaceutical," and insert "supplementary ophthalmic."

Line 12, at end, insert—
In paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of section thirty-four (which provides for the issue by medical practitioners providing general medical services of certificates reasonably required under or for the purposes of any enactment) after the word 'of.' there shall be inserted the words such certificates as may be prescribed being.'"—[The Lord Advocate.]

COAST PROTECTION BILL. [Lords]

Order for consideration (as amended in the Standing Committee) read.

Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 21, page 28, lines 10 and 12 and Clause 30, page 35, line 37, standing on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Bevan.—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Mr. DIAMOND in the Chair]

9.50 p.m.

Clause 21.—(EXCHEQUER GRANTS.)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I beg to move, in page 28, line 10, at the end to insert:
( ) Subject to such conditions as aforesaid the Minister may make grants to the Seaford Urban District Council for the provision of funds for meeting expenditure incurred by the Commissioners for the Newhaven and Seaford Sea Defence Works.


It was understood originally that the case of the expenditure at Seaford would be covered under the Bill as originally drafted, but as we find that in this instance there is some doubt whether it would be possible to make the contribution from the State fund which we intend to make, it has been found necessary to move this Amendment so as to make it quite clear that we should be able to make the contribution towards the expenses of the sea defence works which are now going on at Seaford and which are being carried out under the Newhaven and Seaford Sea Defences Act, 1947. In this case the expenses are incurred by the Commissioners set up by that Act. The Seaford Council raise the necessary money, which is grant-aided. This Amendment is merely to ensure that the money which we intend to be made available to the Seaford Council shall in fact, be made available.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what is the rate of the grant?

Mr. Blenkinsop: That does not arise on this Amendment at all. This is one of the cases to which I referred on Second Reading where we are making a contribution approaching about 80 per cent. of the cost.

Mr. Hudson: This is the first case which has arisen under the Bill to carry out the suggestion which we have continually made that the rate of the grant in all cases ought to be the rate the Government are paying to Seaford.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Showing how generous we are.

Mr. Hudson: And showing how wise we are.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 28, line 12, leave out "the last foregoing subsection" and insert "subsection (1) of this section."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30.—(TRANSFER AND COMPENSATION OF OFFICERS, AND SUPERANNUATION RIGHTS.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 35, line 37, at the end, to insert:
(b) in relation to an order or agreement varying the constitution of such a board or

committee, the board or committee, the constituent or appointing authorities, and any authority which on the variation taking effect will be one of the constituent or appointing authorities.
This is an Amendment to repair a drafting omission. The Clause, which deals with the transfer and compensation of officers, already covers the case where a board or committee is set up or dissolved but not the case where the constitution of a board or committee is varied. This omission is now made good.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments: as amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal), considered.

Clause 4.—(GENERAL POWERS OF COAST PROTECTION AUTHORITIES.)

10.0 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I beg to move, in page 6, line 6, at the end, to insert:
Provided that—

(a) except with the consent in writing of any river board or drainage authority which is for the time being maintaining works for the protection of the coast, a coast protection authority shall not carry out any coast protection work in the locality in which such protective works are maintained;
(b) such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld and any question whether consent is unreasonably withheld shall be determined by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries."

This is substantially the same Amendment as that which I moved in Standing Committee upstairs. Hon. Members opposite will remember that I withdrew the Amendment, after a certain amount of discussion, on the distinct undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary that the matter would be considered, and that if, in fact, it were found that the doubt was justified which I expressed, as to whether statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary were correct or not, clarifying words would be inserted at this stage.
I did propose, Mr. Speaker, to ask your permission to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention, as I did on Second Reading, to the absence of the Minister of Health; but in this particular case, as, for once, he has been present on the Front Bench during most of the day, I do not propose


to do it. However, it is a fact that Members of the House, and particularly Members of the Opposition, have been at a grave disadvantage through the failure of the Minister himself to attend a single one of the meetings of the Committee. He left it, in fact, to his Parliamentary Secretary. I am not disputing in any way the competence of the Parliamentary Secretary, but I am going to state—as we shall see in the course of speeches on subsequent Amendments in our names—that in fact the Parliamentary Secretary made statements to the Committee which were not in accordance with what has been subsequently proved to be the case.
In this particular instance—I find it a little difficult to choose my words with discretion—the Parliamentary Secretary agreed that representatives of ours should attend to try to clarify the position with his own officials. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that the point at issue was whether or not a particular body should have the right of appeal; whether we could ensure that its objections—any objections that it made at the various stages—would be considered; that the rights of the minority would be so protected. So far from that being the case, when this deputation went to his Department—I was not present myself: had I known what was going to happen, I would have taken the trouble to go—I am informed that his officials made it abundantly clear that, in fact, objections by such a minority would be overruled.
In a long experience of the workings of this House, I must say that I frankly do not remember any such case having arisen before. I think that it illustrates the difficulty in which Members are placed when the responsible Minister does not attend the Committee and give a ruling. I cannot conceive that had the Minister himself been present at the Committee meetings and had made the kind of statement which the Parliamentary Secretary made, and on the strength of which we withdrew our Amendment, officials of the Department would have dared to have spoken in the way which they did, or are reported to have done, to the representatives whom we sent to interview them. It is in order to call attention to this, and to ask once again that provision should be inserted in this Bill to safeguard the rights of the minority—and in this particular instance

there may conceivably be very important issues concerned—that we are moving to insert these words.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am rather surprised at the tone which the right hon. Gentleman has adopted in moving this Amendment. It is perfectly true that in discussion in Committee we agreed that we would examine this matter further to satisfy ourselves that a drainage board or authority would have the opportunity of making objection to the proposals of a coast protection authority, whether that coast protection authority was a local authority or a coast protection board, before the work was carried out. The guarantee which I gave that the matter would receive further consideration has not only been carried out but, if the right hon. Gentleman will examine the Amendments which we have down on the Order Paper, he will find that, although perhaps we have not covered fully all the issues that he might have wished to have seen covered, we have met very largely the points which he raised at that time, and we have met, so far as we believe it is possible to do so, the claims of the drainage boards and drainage authorities in this matter.
There is no doubt that in any case where a coast protection authority intends to carry out work, whether within the area of a coast protection board or outside the area, which interferes with the works of a drainage authority, that drainage authority has power of objection and can raise the matter with the Ministers concerned, not only my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, as the Minister particularly responsible, who must then determine the matter. Further, we have ensured that there shall be a statutory provision for notice to be given to the drainage authority of any intended work that is to be carried out by a coast protection authority which would affect a drainage authority.
The point was taken earlier in Committee, and while we assured the right hon. Gentleman that we would by regulation provide for that notice, he pressed for it to be given statutory effect. We have done so. We have gone further, in an Amendment which we shall be moving later to Clause 48, to ensure that where a coast protection board on which a drainage authority has a seat proposes to carry


out work outside its own area which interferes with the work of a drainage authority, that drainage authority shall not only have the right of objection but the right of complete veto of such work.
The only case which remains where the coast protection board, with the drainage authority included on it, will have power to interfere in any way with the works of a drainage authority, is where it is within the area laid out in the order setting up the coast protection board, and in that case it will have power to carry out any alterations that the coast protection board considers necessary. But in that event, first the drainage authority will have the opportunity of making objection to the draft order that laid out the area they were to cover, so that they would have that first opportunity of objecting to an area which might include the drainage authority works; secondly, they would have the opportunity—though one would hope that it would not be necessary to stress this—of making objection to the actual proposed works when the proposals were put forward by the coast protection board. We feel that that gives very full and adequate cover to the needs of the drainage authority, and fully protects them against any danger of interference with their work.
I think that very often hon. Members have the impression that, for some reason or other, coast protection boards will be anxious to interfere with the general running of and the general works carried out by drainage authorities. That is not so. Coast protection boards will be anxious to work in co-operation with drainage authorities. Drainage authorities are particularly concerned with low-lying land, and we are only anxious to secure that there shall be proper co-operation to ensure that the work that is done in one area shall not defeat the objects and the work that is being done elsewhere, because work done by coast protection boards in one district obviously affects the position on the coastline elsewhere; equally, work done by drainage authorities affects proposed work being carried out by coast protection boards.
I, therefore, feel quite clear that on this issue we have fully carried out any guarantee that I gave in Committee for reconsideration of this matter: we have

strengthened the safeguards of the drainage authorities; we have ensured statutorily that they shall receive notice of work; and we have, after re-examination of the position, satisfied ourselves completely that the drainage authorities shall have full power of objection to any works that are proposed to be carried out by coast protection boards. In view of those assurances, and in view more particularly of the later Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman will see on the Order Paper in our name, I hope that he will find it possible to withdraw this Amendment.

Major Legge-Bourke: I have not spoken on this Bill before, so that perhaps it is only fair to the House that I should declare my interest in this matter. I have a very close connection with the Association of Drainage Authorities, and for that reason I should like to make one or two remarks upon what I can only describe as a rather glib speech from the Parliamentary Secretary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No doubt hon. Members opposite would prefer me to say that I am satisfied. My feeling about this Amendment is that what we are really trying to safeguard is the position of those people who are simply given an opportunity by the Ministry of making their complaint without any hope of getting it met. There has been a tendency, particularly noticeable with the Ministry of Health, for opportunities to be given for complaints to be made with the foreknowledge that no matter how clear, strong or just the complaint may be, it has not the remotest chance of winning the day.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. and gallant Member suggesting that where a drainage authority is a member of a coast protection board it should be able to veto any work that is done, because that is what he seems to be saying? He seems to be saying that the minority shall not only have the right to object but the right to veto the work.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am not suggesting that at all. I am saying that sometimes a minority happens to be right, and that when it is right there should be a chance of it winning the day. In the Ministry of Health, in particular, opportunity is all too frequently given for a complaint to be made, but whether it


happens to be on just or fair grounds the minority will never win the day. If the protection of minorities is to be maintained in the House of Commons, it is absolutely essential that minorities have a chance of winning the day against any majority.
The Ministry of Health is an example of what happens if the Civil Service is allowed to get too much power. There is no question about it that the Ministry of Health officials are much more dictatorial than any others. I am giving no names because it is unfair to individuals who cannot answer for themselves; it is the Minister's business. The example set by the Ministry of Agriculture, as far as drainage authorities are concerned, might well be followed in this respect by the Ministry of Health. We should be given a categorical assurance tonight that no case shall be prejudged until all sides have been heard. An absolute guarantee should be given by the Ministry that a minority shall have a chance of winning the day.

Mr. Blenkinsop: It is important to get this straight. Drainage authorities are themselves composed mainly of representatives of local authorities. I want to know whether the hon. and gallant Member feels that one authority should have the right, not only of making objections, but of insisting that their objections be sustained. If that is so, he is really asking far too much. We must insist that while minorities should have a right to make their views known, the Ministers in this case must consider the views of both sides. The Ministers are bound to be influenced by the majority, although that does not mean to say the minority view is not to be heard.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am not clear, although I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary's speech with as much attention as I could, whether or not he has met the point put forward by my right hon. Friend. As I understand it, it is his contention that in substance the points put by my right hon. Friend are covered by later Amendments. Throughout his speech the hon. Gentleman referred entirely to drainage authorities. Does he mean that the points raised by my right hon. Friend, and covered by our Amendment, are met by the Government Amendments dealing with river boards,

because he made no reference to river boards? I understood him to say that the later Amendments, under the rather comprehensive procedure which he outlined to us, provide that the drainage authority outside the area of the coast protection board will have the right of objection and, I think he suggested, the right of veto.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Where a coast protection board is set up, and the area of operation of the board is defined under the order setting it up, and the drainage authority is a member of the board, if the coast protection board wishes to carry out works outside its area, as it may do under the Bill, it cannot carry out works which interfere with the works of the drainage authority without the consent of the drainage authority. The drainage authority, in that case, has the complete right of veto.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am much obliged; that clears up the case where the area to be affected is outside the area of the coast protection board. But there is this further point, to which I would like an answer: what is the position when the works which the coast protection board seek to interfere with or affect are within the area of the coast protection board and there are the works of a drainage authority or river board within that area? Has the drainage authority the same right of veto as it would have if the works were outside the area scheduled for the coast protection board? If it is not the same for both cases, the hon. Gentleman is meeting only half the case put forward by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I was careful to mention this point. I said that where there is a coast protection board operating within an area defined under the order setting up the board, and the drainage authority has a seat on the board, then that drainage authority will have a right of objection, but not of veto, for this reason: the drainage authority would have the opportunity of objecting to the draft order declaring the area of operation of the coast protection board and, secondly, would have the right of objection to the proposed works to be carried out by the coast protection board, but not the right of veto. The right of objection would be


heard by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture; so, to my mind, the position is fully safeguarded.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sorry to pursue this matter unduly, but it is a little complicated. The hon. Gentleman says that in the case of the drainage authority which forms a minority on the coast protection board there will be the right of objection in relation to the works within the area of that board, but not the right of veto that there would be with regard to works outside the area. For some reason they are not quite in the same position. Then the hon. Gentleman said that, in addition to having that right of objection but not the right of veto, they would have the right of referring the matter to be heard both by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health. Does he really mean that? Are the two Ministers to sit and hear the objections? I am not sure that he really means that phrase in the sense in which he used it. Perhaps he would like to correct it. Do the Ministers really propose to act as a court of appeal. I do not believe it.

Mr. Blenkinsop: If the hon. and learned Gentleman has not considered the matter, I would emphasise that the Bill clearly lays down that the objection must be heard by both the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture. It is for the specific reason of safeguarding the position of the drainage authority that that is inserted.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I do not think that the distinction which is drawn between the case where the area affected is outside a coast protection board's area and the case where it is inside the area has really any validity at all, and I cannot see why the same treatment should not be afforded and the same rôle given to the drainage authority no matter where the coast protection works are likely to be. In my view it is quite illogical, and I do not see why the Parliamentary Secretary has not been able to meet us instead of leaving the matter in this unsatisfactory state.

Mr. Edward Evans: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman seriously contend that a body like the drainage board or the coast protection board should have a right of veto on the findings

of the whole of the body, irrespective of the co-ordination necessary for the protection of that part of the coast? That is quite an untenable position. After the right of argument and the right of presentation of their case, it cannot be contended that they should have the right of veto in regard to a part of the coast which is said to be governed by a coast protection board. The right hon. Gentleman used the words, "coast protection authority." I doubt if he appreciates the difference between a coast protection authority and a coast protection board.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: By leave of the House, I want to try to make clear what is the difficulty which we on this side of the House have. We admit that half of our objection has been met by the Parliamentary Secretary. We are still concerned with the case of a drainage authority which is a constituent member of a coast protection authority. We are dealing with the proposals inside the area of the coast protection board. The drainage authority may well be in a minority of one, and we believe that that minority of one should not only have the right to object at the board, but should have the right of appeal to the two Ministers concerned.
The Parliamentary Secretary, as I understand it, contends that that right is substantially conferred on the drainage authority by Clauses 4 and 5. We have always doubted whether that right put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary was not overruled by Clause 48. What gives us real grounds for our fear is the result, as I told the House, of the talks held between our representatives and the hon. Gentleman's own officials. Our representatives certainly came away—and I do not want to go into details or to mention names—from that meeting under the distinct impression that any minority objection would automatically be overruled.
I was not there myself, but they definitely came away with that impression. They were a public-spirited body of men with a long experience of these matters, and they informed us that they were very anxious for the House to insert these safeguarding words because of that interview. They believe that in fact, if they make an objection under the existing system, it will be ignored automatically.


I think that is thoroughly wrong and, to do him justice, I do not believe that the Parliamentary Secretary thinks it a right attitude to take. I am sure he would be anxious to make certain that words were inserted to ensure that a minority, even a minority of one, should have justice done to its claims; and that they should be properly considered. It

is to ensure that that we seek to insert those words; and I hope that, on further consideration, justice will not only be done but will seem to be done.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 81; Noes, 208.

Division No. 253.]
AYES
[10.27 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Odey, G. W.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Baldwin, A. E.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Raikes, H. V.


Barlow, Sir J.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Bennett, Sir P.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Birch, Nigel
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Ropner, Col. L.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bowen, R.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Scott, Lord W.


Bower, N.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Keeling, E. H.
Studholme, H. G.


Butcher, H. W.
Legee-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Teeling, William


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Turton, R. H.


Corbett, Lieut,-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Wadsworth, G.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
McFarlane, C. S.
Wakefieid, Sir W. W.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Walker-Smith, D.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Drayson, G. B.
Marples, A. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Drewe, C.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
York, C.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)



Gage, C.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Nield, B. (Chester)
Brigadier Mackeson and Colonel Wheatley.




NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Corlett, Dr. J.
Haworth, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Cove, W. G.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Herbison, Miss M.


Allen Scholefield (Crewe)
Deer, G.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Alpass, J. H.
Delargy, H. J.
Hobson, C. R.


Attewell, H. C.
Diamond, J.
Holman, P.


Austin, H. Lewis
Dobbie, W.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Awbery, S. S.
Dodds, N. N.
Horabin, T. L.


Ayles, W. H.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Houghton, Douglas


Baird, J.
Dye, S.
Hoy, J.


Balfour, A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hubbard, T.


Barton, C.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


B ng, G. H. C.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Janner, B.


Binns, J.
Ewart, R.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Fairhurst, F.
Johnston, Douglas


Blyton, W. R.
Farthing, W. J.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Boardman, H.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Bowden, H. W.
Forman, J. C.
Keenan, W.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Kenyon, C.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gibson, C. W.
Kinley, J.


Brown, George (Belper)
Gilzean, A.
Lang, G.


Burden, T. W.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Lavers, S.


Burke, W. A.
Gooch, E. G.
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Leonard, W.


Callaghan, James
Grey, C. F.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Carmichael, James
Grierson, E.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Champion, A. J.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Cobb, F. A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Lindgren, G. S.


Cocks, F. S.
Gunter, R. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Coldrick, W.
Guy, W. H.
Logan, D. G.


Collindridge, F.
Hale, Leslie
Longden, F.


Collins, V. J.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Lyne, A. W.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hardy, E. A.
McAdam, W.


Cook, T. F.
Harrison, J.
McEntee, V. La T.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville.
McGhee, H. G.




McKay. J. (Wallsend)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Price, M. Philips
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


McLeavy, F.
Proctor, W. T.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


MacPherton, Malcolm (Stirling)
Pryde, D. J.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Ranger, J.
Thurtle, Ernest


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Rankin, J.
Tolley, L.


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Reeves, J.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Mayhew, C. P.
Rhodes, H.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Medland, H. M.
Richards, R.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Mellish, R. J.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamslow, E.)


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Warbey, W. N.


Mikardo, Ian
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Watkins, T. E.


Mitchison, G. R.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Monslow, W.
Royle, C.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Moody, A. S.
Sargood, R.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Scollan, T.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Morley, R.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Sharp, Granville
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mort, D. L.
Shurmer, P.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Moyle, A.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Wilkins, W. A.


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Simmons, C. J.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Skinnard, F. W.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Oldfield, W. H.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Orbach, M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Willis, E.


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Snow, J. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Palmer, A. M. F.
Sorensen, R. W.
Woods, G. S.


Pannell, T. C.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Yates, V. F.


Pargiter, G. A.
Sparks, J. A.



Parkin, B. T.
Steele, T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pearson, A.
Swingler, S.
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Hannan.


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Sylvester, G. O.

Clause 5.—(OBJECTIONS TO, AND APPROVAL OF, PROPOSALS TO CARRY OUT COAST PROTECTION WORK.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 6, line 40, at the end, to insert:
and shall serve a like notice on any river board or other drainage authority in whose area any of the work is to be carried out.
This is one of the Amendments to which I referred earlier, and the object of it is to give effect to the pledge which I gave in Standing Committee; that is, that we should make statutory provision for a notice to be served on a drainage authority for any work proposed to be carried out by a coast protection authority in their area.

Colonel Dower: Just to show that this Bill is not a party Measure, I have added my name to the Amendment of the Minister of Health. I hope that this will give encouragement to him, when serving on a Committee, to carry out the undertakings which he gives there when a Bill comes back to the floor of the House. My only other point is a small one. I should like to ask why the Bill comes from the Ministry of Health: why not the Ministry of Works, or the Ministry of Town and Country Planning?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the

Parliamentary Secretary for carrying out the promise of accepting the substance of Amendments proposed in the Standing Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 43, after "such," insert "other."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I beg to move, in page 7, line 2, after "person," to insert
(including, in the case of a proposal made by a coast protection board, any river board or drainage authority represented on that board).
This is a very similar point to the one which we discussed on an earlier Amendment standing in my name. The words of my Amendment are, in our view, necessary for the avoidance of doubt in view of the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary on 2nd June, in the Standing Committee, when he said, speaking of Clause 5, that it does not specify the area. There was, he said, full opportunity for objections by anyone under that Clause, irrespective of where the works were done. That, I think, is fairly comprehensive and uncompromising. He further said that anyone, whether a constituent member of the drainage authority, or the board, or an individual, had a right to make objection. That is what was said. The interesting part is the inconsistency of that with the official reply


by his right hon. Leader, the Minister of Health, to representations by the catchment boards, and also to the representatives of those boards in the conversations to which I have earlier referred.

Mr. Blenkinsop: indicated dissent—

Mr. Hudson: The hon. Gentleman should not shake his head; he was not there.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The right hon. Gentleman was not there, either.

Mr. Hudson: Well, I think it is news to him.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Not at all.

Mr. Hudson: His officials have to administer this Bill even after, we hope, he has departed to other spheres in about two months' time. It is important from the point of view of the drainage authorities and the catchment boards that it should be abundantly clear that the officials of the Minister have important obligations imposed on them by statute and are not to be free to act at their own sweet will.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am surprised the right hon. Gentleman should feel it necessary to move this Amendment after the very specific statement I have made on this subject. It is perfectly clear that there is the right of a constituent member of coast protection boards to make objections, though I do rather resent the suggestion that the coast protection boards and the drainage authorities are to be in a state of general perpetual warfare, which seems to be the attitude of mind of the right hon. Gentleman. The suggestion appears to be that the drainage authorities as constituent members of a board, or where they are constituent members of the boards, will be continuously in opposition to the work of the coast protection authority. That is extremely unlikely. In point of fact, the work that has to be done is for their joint benefit.
Indeed, we have the example in operation today in the work now proceeding at Caister, where the local authority and the drainage authority are co-operating very effectively together. That is merely an example of the co-operation we have every right to expect from responsible bodies working together. There is no sort of suggestion or reason why hon. Gentlemen opposite should imagine that

there will be this continuous state of warfare and that there should be pressed upon, as it were, every constituent member of the coast protection board the opportunity of delaying the work of the coast protection boards by not only raising the matter within the board but, also, on every conceivable occasion that it may happen to be in the minority, bringing the matter forward to the Minister concerned.
There is no doubt that they have the right, if they wish to exercise it, of raising objections, but we believe that as a natural practice they will co-operate together, and we have every evidence to show that they will. For that reason and because we think this is a wholly unnecessary Amendment, we hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw it, but if he presses it we shall take a Division upon it.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I really do not think the hon. Gentleman has been fair to the House. Just because on two occasions the possibility has been visualised from this side that there might be difficulties between a drainage board as a constituent member of the coast protection board and the coast protection board as a whole, and because we have sought to avoid the possibility of such difficulties arising, he has no right to suggest that we are contemplating a perpetual state of warfare between these two bodies. There is nothing of the sort. But what we visualise is that unless care is taken and unless goodwill is exercised, the Bill, as it is printed, does admit of friction being created, and we want to ensure by every possible means that no such friction will arise.

Mr. Blenkinsop: There is no special provision here that would encourage friction any more than the setting up of a drainage authority or other joint board where there are constituent members. They are responsible people. Why should we assume that there should be this disturbance?

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman straight away that to begin with, he has created a singularly bad impression with the drainage boards because his Department has given them to understand that any representations which they may make as minority members are going to be over-ruled. That is the impression that has been left on the


minds of representatives of drainage boards. I do not say that it is a correct impression, but the hon. Gentleman has started on the wrong foot and we are trying to put him on the right foot—on the right road. Once we get him on the right foot we hope we shall get him on the right road, and that will be a considerable advance.
There is no technical or real difficulty in accepting our Amendment. The hon. Gentleman says that the effect we are trying to establish is already in the Bill, but there is doubt, if not in his mind, at least in other people's minds, whether it is already in the Bill. If he wants to promote a cordial atmosphere and bonhomie between these two bodies, why does he not take this simple step? It can do no harm; it removes doubts and avoids confusion. I hope the hon. Gentleman will get on the right road and accept this Amendment without further ado.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider his attitude because it seems to me he is making very heavy weather indeed with what is really a very simple matter, and largely one of drafting. An Amendment which he himself moved to subsection (1) of Section 5, provides that notice has to be given to a drainage authority by a coast protection authority proposing to do work. Subsection (3) says that where notice has been published by an authority, then any person may serve a notice on the Minister giving notice of

objection. That is the effect of subsection (3). All this Amendment seeks to do is to ensure beyond all manner of doubt that in the definition of the words "any person" there should be included the river board and drainage authority.

The hon. Gentleman may say that these words are not necessary. On the other hand, they obviously remove doubt and would remove any possibility of friction—which appears unfortunately to have arisen following an interview in his own Department. It seems that this is largely a matter of drafting and not a matter of perpetual warfare between the two bodies, or between the two bodies and the Ministry. In view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman has made specific reference to drainage authorities in subsection (1), the omission from subsection (3) might be taken, reading the two together, to infer that the definition of "any person" in subsection (3) would exclude the drainage authorities.

It really cannot do any harm as far as I can see, and from what the hon. Gentleman said, to accept this Amendment. It is clearly carrying out the present intention of the Government, and all that we are asking is that that intention should be made absolutely clear in this complicated Measure. It is for those reasons I ask him to reconsider the matter.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 74: Noes, 189.

Division No. 254.]
AYES
[10.51 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Baldwin, A. E.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Barlow, Sir J.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Ropner, Col. L.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bennett, Sir P.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Scott, Lord W.


Birch, Nigel
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Bowen, R.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Studholme, H. G.


Bower, N.
Keeling, E. H.
Teeling, William


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Turton, R. H.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Vane, W. M. F.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Wadsworth, G.


Butcher, H. W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
McFarlane, C. S.
Walker-Smith, D.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Marples, A. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
York, C.


Drayson, G. B.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Drewe, C.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.



Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Nield, B. (Chester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Odey, G. W.
Major Conant and


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Brigadier Mackeson.




NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Hardy, E. A.
Pannell, T. C.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Harrison, J.
Pargiter, G. A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville,
Parkin, B. T.


Alpass, J. H.
Haworth, J.
Pearson, A.


Attewell, H. C.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Austin, H. Lewis
Herbison, Miss M.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Awbery, S. S.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Price, M. Philips


Balfour, A.
Hobson, C. R.
Pryde, D. J.


Barton, C.
Holman, P.
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Ranger, J.


Binns, J.
Horabin, T. L.
Rankin, J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Houghton, Douglas
Reeves, J.


Blyton, W. R.
Hoy, J.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Boardman, H.
Hubbard, T.
Rhodes, H.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Richards, R.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, J. B. (Atterclifle)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Brown, George (Belper)
Janner, B.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Burden, T. W.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Burke, W. A.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Royle, C.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Jones, J. H. (Balton)
Sargood, R.


Callaghan, James
Keenan, W.
Scollan, T.


Carmichael, James
Kenyon, C.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Champion, A. J.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Sharp, Granville


Cocks, F. S.
Kinley, J.
Shurmer, P.


Coldrick, W.
Lang, G.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Collindridge, F.
Lavers, S.
Simmons, C. J.


Collins, V. J.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Skinnard, F. W.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Leonard, W.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Cook, T. F.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Snow, J. W.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sorensen, R. W.


Cove, W. G.
Lindgren, G. S.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Logan, D. G.
Steele, T.


Deer, G.
Longden, F.
Swingler, S.


Delargy, H. J.
Lyne, A. W.
Sylvester, G. O.


Diamond, J.
McAdam, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dobbie, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Dodds, N. N.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Tiffany, S.


Dye, S.
McLaavy, F.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersheld)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Ewart, R.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Warbey, W. N.


Fairhurst, F.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Watkins, T. E.


Farthing, W. J.
Mayhew, C. P.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mellish, R. J.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Forman, J. C.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mikardo, Ian
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mitchison, G. R.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Gibson, C. W.
Monslow, W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gilzean, A.
Moody, A. S.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Gooch, E. G.
Morley, R.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Willis, E.


Grey, C. F.
Moyle, A.



Grierson, E.
Nally, W.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Woods, G. S.


Gunter, R. J.
Orbach, M.
Yates, V. F.


Hale, Leslie
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)



Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Palmer, A. M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Bowden.


Question put, and agreed to.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 7, line 5, to leave out from "proposal," to the end of line 9.
This Amendment, together with one to be moved later, covers points raised in Committee where it was suggested that there should be at least a general right of objection even though it might not be necessary in every case for a full public inquiry to be held. This Amendment is

to ensure that there shall be that general right of objection to a proposal to do coast protection work, though there would be no necessity for the Minister to hold a local inquiry unless the objection is on one of the grounds already mentioned in subsection (3) and now mentioned in the succeeding subsection.

Mr. Hudson: May we discuss, at the same time, the Government Amendment in line 11, after "withdrawn," to insert:


and the ground of objection is that the proposed work will be detrimental to the protection of any land specified in the notice, or will interfere with the exercise by the objector of his functions under any enactment other than this Act.

Mr. Speaker: If that is for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Hudson: The effect of the Amendment in line 5 is to delete the portion of this subsection specifying the grounds on which objection to a proposal can be taken and, therefore, by itself, it enables an objection to be made on any grounds. The next Amendment reinserts the words deleted from subsection (3). The two Amendments therefore have the effect of limiting the local inquiry to objections on the grounds specified.
As a result, the catchment boards are in some doubt because of the words used by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee on 2nd June. He said that the Amendments which we had moved were unnecessary, adding:
I do not feel that the Amendment is necessary, because it seeks to add as a ground of objection that the proposed work will affect detrimentally a drainage authority's works. If it did so affect them it would obviously interfere with the authority's statutory functions, and, therefore, the case would come within the statutory grounds of objection which are already laid down in subsection (3)."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 2nd June, 1949; c. 68–69.]
We are advised that the Parliamentary Secretary was not completely accurate in his reference to statutory grounds. The statutory functions of a drainage authority are to make and maintain works for the protection of low-lying land. If an existing wall or bank of a drainage authority collapses as a result of the execution of works by a catchment board or one of the new coast protection authorities, that is not an interference by the protection authority with the statutory functions of the drainage authority. The coast protection authority might well say to the drainage authority, "Your function is to keep the bank or river wall in repair. If it collapses through any cause whatsoever, it is your function to restore it". [Laughter.] I do not know what the hon. Member laughs at.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I was merely appreciating the argument.

Mr. Hudson: The argument is a very sound one because under the existing law it would be the function of the drainage authority to repair this wall and it would have no redress against the coast protection authority, although that authority's works directly caused the collapse of the wall.

Mr. Edward Evans: What caused the collapse of the wall?

Mr. Hudson: The river, possibly as a result of works carried out by the coast protection authority. Their work might cause flooding further up the river. It is quite clear, therefore, that the words used by the Parliamentary Secretary are not absolutely accurate, and there is the possibility that there would be a real ground of objection although, under the terms of the Bill, if the Amendments were made, no grounds of objection would lie.

Mr. Charles Williams: I listened with considerable interest to what the Parliamentary Secretary said. Apparently he thought it wise to leave out these words which, in a sense, give a certain amount of protection to those who might wish to object on these matters. We have never been informed how it was that these apparently superfluous words ever got into the Bill at all, and we were certainly never given any proper reason why they should be taken out. It seems that there is a later Amendment on the point and that has been most ably dealt with, as always, by my right hon. Friend.
How is it that this muddle has been made by the Government draftsmen, under the supervision of the Minister, who tells us that he is a great authority on this matter? I quite appreciate that the position is highly objectionable to the Secretary of State, and I hope an admonition will be given not to do this again. The House of Commons should be given a much fuller explanation on how this position has arisen, instead of the Parliamentary Secretary just reading a few words off his brief without giving any reasons at all. It is not treating the House of Commons with respect.

Mr. Blenkinsop: With permission, I would make it clear that what we are proposing here is that there shall be a full and general right of objection, but that only in the specified cases will the


right of objection also include the right of public hearing as applied in the Bill. I would point out that not only does this provide for a hearing where the works will interfere with the exercise by the objector of his functions under any enactment other than this Bill, but also where the works will be detrimental to the protection of any land specified in the notice. We are satisfied that within these definitions any matters suggested by the right hon. Gentleman will be covered.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Does the Parliamentary Secretary then say that the particular case my right hon. Friend put will be covered by the phrase "detrimental to the protection of any land specified in the notice"? That seems to me to imply that the particular wall which was damaged by reason of the coast protection authority would have to be specified in the notice—that part of his Amendment is extremely limited. I do not think there is much between us, except a matter of wording and definition. I feel certain that where the works of a drainage authority may be affected by the works of the coast protection authority, it must be the Government's intention to give the drainage authority the right of objection and for that right of objection to be followed either by local inquiry or hearing before the Minister. I do not think it is carried out by these words.
As far as the functions are concerned, the words are very limited. They refer to functions under any enactment other than this Bill, so that one has to refer to the statute to see what the definitions are—no doubt to erect and maintain works for drainage purposes. But in spite of interference with these works by reason of the operations of the coast protection authority, the maintenance, re-erection and erection of the works of the drainage authority may not be interfered with.
That is why my right hon. Friend states that the words of this Amendment are not quite wide enough to carry out the purpose which is common to both sides of the House. I do not think that the earlier words of the Amendment really cover the point at all, because those earlier words are limited by the phrase
detrimental to the protection of any land specified in the notice.
I do not know what the notice is going to contain, but if the land likely to be

affected—it may be miles away from the works of the coast protection authority—

Mr. Blenkinsop: It is the notice of objection served by the drainage authority which claims that there is damage to its works.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for what he has now said. If that be the correct interpretation, it follows that if the drainage authority specifies in that notice any land, no matter where it may be, no matter whether there is any reference to the functions of the drainage authority under the Act, then consequent on the notice there will be a right to the local inquiry or the hearing before the Minister. If that be so, the case put forward by my right hon. Friend would appear to be covered.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I beg to move, in page 7, line 9, at the end to insert:
or (in the case of an objection by a river board or drainage authority) that the proposed work will, or will be likely to, affect detrimentally any of the drainage works of such board or authority.
This is consequential on another Amendment on which we have had a discussion.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 7, line 11, after "withdrawn," insert:
and the ground of objection is that the proposed work will be detrimental to the protection of any land specified in the notice, or will interfere with the exercise by the objector of his functions under any enactment other than this Act."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Clause 7.—(WORKS SCHEMES PROVIDING FOR COAST PROTECTION CHARGES.)

Amendments made: In page 9, line 45, leave out from "if," to first "that," in line 46, and insert "on any such arbitration it is determined."

In page 10, line 4, leave out "by the arbitrator or arbiter," and insert "on the arbitration."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Clause 8.—(CONFIRMATION OF WORKS SCHEMES.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 10, line 28, to leave out "subsections (3) and (4)," and to insert "subsection (3)."
This Amendment, together with certain following Amendments, provides again,


as we have already agreed in relation to Clause 5, for a general right of objection to works schemes. Here again the holding of a public inquiry would not be obligatory unless the ground of objection is one of those previously mentioned in the subsection. Again we meet the suggestion put forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 32, after "out," insert:
on any river board or other drainage authority in whose area any of the work is to be carried out."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 11 line 2, to leave out from the first "scheme" to end of line 19.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: This is rather a considerable Amendment, but we have not had any explanation of it. I was not a member of the Committee. How am I to explain this to my constituents, whom I see frequently and who are thoroughly disillusioned? How am I to explain when suddenly something like 17 lines of a Bill are deleted without any explanation from the Government? We really are entitled to an explanation of the words
on the ground that the work provided for by the scheme, or any part thereof, is unnecessary.
That may be all right. Here you are referring to what may be a considerable amount. You proceed to leave out the whole of subsection (4) regarding the matter of a notice, and I do not know for a certainty where that subsection is dealt with in any way in the Bill as amended. Obviously there must have been reasons for putting these words into the Bill, and we are entitled to be told where these words went wrong, and why they should be left out. I see the Under-Secretary for Scotland sitting there and he may be wishing to express to the House the Scottish point of view. That would be an excellent thing, for only a minute or so ago something regarding Scotland was passed without hon. Members for Scotland knowing anything about it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 11, line 20, leave out from "under," to "and," in line 21, and insert "the

last foregoing subsection." — [Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 11, line 21, after "withdrawn," insert:
and the ground of the objection is—

(a) that the work provided for by the scheme, or any part thereof, is unnecessary;
(b) that the carrying out thereof in the manner provided by the scheme would cause hardship to the objector;
(c) that the land indicated by the scheme as contributory land includes land which ought not to be so indicated or does not include land which ought to be so indicated;
(d) in the case of a scheme which specifies the persons by whom coast protection charges are to be paid as mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of the last foregoing section, that any other provision of the scheme as to such charges is inequitable or unduly onerous; or
(e) that the work provided for by the scheme will be detrimental to the protection of any land specified in the notice of objection, or will interfere with the exercise by the objector of his functions under any enactment."

This is consequential.

Mr. C. Williams: We are rather used to this sort of thing, which is rapidly becoming an abuse. The hon. Gentleman gets up and says an Amendment is consequential, but generally he has not the slightest idea of what he is talking about. I say it is a gross abuse of the House of Commons. I think it is particularly an abuse when we have a very considerable Amendment of this kind submitted without any explanation from the Minister. If he has the courtesy to say this is consequential on a point which was raised a minute or so earlier, that would be the usual thing for a Minister to do. I have often heard hon. Gentlemen belonging to the party opposite violently abuse Tory Ministers for saying, in a casual way, that these things are consequential. I notice that the Home Secretary appears to realise that I am right in saying that this is something which ought to have been done in this case. I do really regret that any Parliamentary Secretary should not extend the usual courtesy to the House, and say to what this particular Amendment is consequential. I say again that the hon. Gentleman, has not the faintest idea what it is about.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: This is more than mere drafting and is something more than consequential. It gives a long list of grounds on which objection can be made. I would just put this question to


the Parliamentary Secretary. If objection on some ground which does not fall within the limits of this Amendment is raised, has the Minister discretion to order a local inquiry?

Mr. Blenkinsop: The whole of these Amendments are widening the opportunity for objections, and thereby ensuring that there is opportunity for a general objection to the Minister, and not only on the grounds that there should be a right to a public inquiry. That was the view put forward; namely, that while it was reasonable there should only be a public inquiry on the limited grounds set forth here, there should, in addition, be a general right of objection in the Amendment we have already carried.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: What I asked was whether, quite apart from the grounds mentioned in this Amendment, there would be the discretion of the Minister to grant a local inquiry where, in his opinion, there should be one, even although it was not within the terms of this Amendment.

Mr. Blenkinsop: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are many occasions when the Minister may grant a public inquiry not on grounds of one enactment, but under all kinds of enactments without statutory obligation to do so, and that would be the case here.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 11, line 45, leave out "subsections (3) and (4)," and insert "subsection (3)."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Clause 10.—(RECOVERY OF COAST PROTECTION CHARGES.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 14, line 19, after "may," to insert:
at any time after it has fallen due.
This, and the succeeding ones, are a further series of drafting Amendments to make it clear that the Clauses about the recovery of coast protection charges only refer to instalments which have already fallen due, and not to those which may fall due later. This is purely for clarification.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): With the permission of the House, I propose to take the remaining five Amendments together.

Mr. Blenkinsop: It might be as well if we took them individually, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as there are intervening Amendments.
I beg to move, in page 14, line 37, at the end, to insert:
(5) The making of an order under the said subsection (2) as respects a coast protection charge shall not prevent the charge from being discharged at any time by the payment to the coast protection authority of the unpaid balance of the charge together with any accrued interest thereon.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: This is surely more than a drafting Amendment.

Mr. Blenkinsop: This is a separate Amendment. It carries out a suggestion put forward in the Standing Committee that a person paying a coast protection charge by instalments should be able to discharge his liability by paying off the unpaid balance at any time.

Mr. Hudson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for meeting our point and for the explanation.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 14, line 39, leave out from "mortgage," to end of line 40, and insert "then at any time while."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 14, line 42, to leave out "instalment," and insert:
any instalment in respect thereof for the time being due and remaining unpaid.
This is consequential.

Mr. C. Williams: It really seems rather more than consequential because, as I understand it, on line 42 we are leaving out the word "instalment" and we are going a good deal further than that by inserting
any instalment in respect thereof for the time being due and remaining unpaid.
It would seem to be rather unnecessary to have brought in the original Bill without bringing in repayment of instalments, as these words obviously mean some part on an instalment which has not already been paid. I cannot understand why the Treasury came to allow, in a Bill of this kind, language which did not make it perfectly plain that not only instalments but part of an instalment had not been paid. It is also, quite possibly, a matter which the Treasury have not been into. There is no reason why we should express regret on this side of the House at the


slackness of the Government in having to bring forward this Amendment, which, as far as I can see, should obviously have been in the original Bill. To say this Amendment is consequential is rather nice, but it is also very tedious.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 14, line 44, to leave out "the," and insert "a."
This and the succeeding Amendment are both consequential.

Mr. C. Williams: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not know on what the hon. Gentleman desires to address me. I have collected the voices in regard to the first half of the question.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 14, line 45, to leave out "payable," and to insert "is due and remains unpaid."
This is also consequential.

Mr. C. Williams: I want to know what it is consequential on. It is obvious from the Parliamentary Secretary's speech a minute ago that both Amendments are consequential on the same one. He will save such a lot of time if he would say on what Amendment this is consequential. The Home Secretary is nodding his head. If he wants to make a speech, I shall give way. If the hon. Gentleman would tell us what it is consequential on, it would simplify matters. He must know. It would be dreadful, when he is making one of the last speeches he will make in this House, if we did not know what he is talking about.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 15, line 20, at the end, to insert:
(9) References in this section to the payment or recovery of an instalment in respect of a coast protection charge shall be construed as including references to the payment or recovery, as the case may be, of any accrued interest in respect of the charge.
This is to provide that instalments that are paid shall include the accrued interest in respect to the charge to which they refer. Again, it is no more than drafting.

Amendment agreed to.

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Popplewell.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal), to be further considered Tomorrow.

PRIVILEGES

The Attorney-General and Mr. Herbert Morrison discharged from the Committee; Mr. Ede and the Solicitor-General added.—[Mr. Popplewell.]

BRITISH ASSETS, ARGENTINA (COMPENSATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

11.31 p.m.

Mr. William Teeling: I am taking the opportunity at this late hour to discuss the question of compensation for British shareholders in the confiscated Argentine companies. As those members of the House who are interested will remember, I have frequently brought forward questions on this subject and obtained as good and detailed answers as one could possibly get at Question time. It will be remembered that in one case—I am not going to mention all the utility companies—the Buenos Aires Transport Corporation, the hon. Gentleman who is to reply tonight and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State, assured me and the House that there had been very definite promises—I think I can go so far as to say that—to the Ambassador from the Argentine Government that the very next matter to be brought up and discussed by the Argentine Government would be that of clearing up the subject of compensation for the British shareholders in that Corporation.
On numerous occasions since, I have reminded the hon. Gentleman of statements from the Argentine, and he has always agreed that the Ambassador was doing his level best to try to get this matter decided. The main object, perhaps, was that the company should be allowed to get into direct touch with the Argentine Government and negotiate and discuss the question of compensation due at the final liquidation of the companies, but there have been so many other vital problems discussed with regard to the Argentine—both in this country and, no doubt, in the Argentine too with regard to ourselves—in the last few


months that this problem may have been overlooked, or partially overlooked.
It affects the whole transport system of the largest Latin city in the world—a city with a population of over 3 million—and covers the whole of their transport system, buses, trams and underground. All this was built up by British capital and investment in the past. In 40 years the Argentine Government have allowed no increase in fares and consequently one can today travel all round this huge city for the sum of ahalfpenny—something which one cannot do in any other civilised capital in the world. It will be realised that as a result millions of people have had a very good time in the Argentine. Everyone can travel very cheaply. The reply will be made: "That is all very fine, but the system is extremely inefficient; the buses and trams are rather falling to pieces." That is unfortunately true at the present moment. Something like £20 million was invested in this transport system, and in those days a tremendous amount of trouble was taken to see that it was efficient and as up-to-date as possible. Considering that the people who planned and built it came to England and studied the transport system of London, I think it would be safe to say that if the companies had had a fair deal and some compensation for the money expended, especially in the last few years, they would have been able to provide once again as up-to-date a system as we have at the present moment in London.
It is therefore wrong to say that these things are falling to pieces due to the company's inability to put the situation right. It is due to the history of what is more or less a political situation; to what has gone on in the Argentine. I think Argentinians themselves should really realise that and that what is actually happening is that some 15,000 to 20,000 people in this country who are debenture-holders of that organisation are left without any form of interest whatsoever on the money expended and are suffering very considerably. Some of them are my constituents. They are not rich people: they are not holders of large shares in this company. They are, most of them, holders of small amounts and they have been landed in this extremely unpleasant and very difficult position.
It will be remembered that the Corporation was formed in 1939 and it was to take over the transportation undertakings which had originally cost something like £20 million to produce. In return the British companies were to receive shares in the Corporation to the value then of something like 220 million pesos. The Corporation was set up according to Argentine law Number 12311 and with the offer of a guarantee of a fair return on invested capital. Since then not a penny of interest has been paid to these people. There was a provision made for an increase in the prices of travel; but that, again, was not allowed for national reasons which may be well understood. I am not disputing that with the Argentine Government for one moment; if they genuinely feel that the prices cannot be raised, well and good. But they should not have promised to the people who paid the money in and to the people who have made a perfectly legal contract that they would pay a reasonable dividend and that, in taking over this, they would give some return to these shareholders in this country, and would provide some compensation.
The wages and the working costs have undoubtedly risen in the Argentine very considerably, which made it absolutely impossible for the Corporation to carry on at anything like a profit unless these fares were raised, and everything has been done to try and get the Government to do this. The net result is that the Corporation has reached a state of bankruptcy. Immense amounts have been borrowed from the State banks to try and keep the concern going, but it has now reached such a stage, so far as we know, that the amount owed by the Corporation is greater than the actual issued capital.
It will be remembered about two years ago, Senor Miranda, then Foreign Secretary, agreed to and offered a sum of no less than £11,250,000 for the British shareholders to pay them for their debenture holdings. That agreement was wrecked, before it could be put through, by the blocking by us of convertibility into dollars—it was our Government's fault that that happened. It was then that the Argentine turned nasty and decided to liquidate the whole concern, put the whole thing into the hands of Congress, and passed the Liquidation Bill into an Act. That was where the Foreign Office


first came into the picture. Since then it has become impossible for the directors of the company in London to contact the Argentine Government at all. The Argentine Government said the matter was finished, liquidated, and as a result the only contact at all possible has been through the Foreign Office, who have done a very good job, especially the Ambassador, in trying as hard as possible to persuade the Argentine Government to discuss the possible compensation for British shareholders.
I will make an appeal to the British Government. No doubt they will want to ask me what I suggest could be done. We had the trade agreement last summer. As I understand it, the Company asked the British Government at that time to include their claims and demands in any negotiations for a trade agreement, but at that time the Foreign Office was unwilling to do so. As the hon. Member knows, I wrote to the Foreign Office about it. They said they could not bring it within the trade agreement, but that they would definitely keep the matter in mind. Now we have had devaluation, and that has brought the whole of the trade agreement up again. As I understand it, at the present moment the Treasury and the Bank of England are quite keen that this matter should be included in any fresh negotiations, but, equally, I understand, the Foreign Office are not. Their view is, "What can we do until the Argentine Government have announced what their liquidation terms are?"
That seems to me to be an impossible situation, because the Argentine Government, perhaps wisely, have announced that they are not now to liquidate for a further year. They have postponed it for another 12 months, which pushes the whole thing back again and leaves the debenture-holders without any form of recompense whatsoever and also leaves the Company in a position to incur even more debt during the year, leading to an even more insolvent position. As the Foreign Office know too well, there will not be a penny left when the time for liquidation comes, so the liquidation really has practically nothing to do with it.
The argument of the British Government should have been that this Company has gone bankrupt through absolutely no

fault of its own and, that being so, the British shareholders—and they are the only people in whom the Foreign Office can be interested—find themselves in the position, again through no fault of their own, of being mulcted of something like £11½ million. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer is looking everywhere for money which can be of assistance to this country, especially money abroad, surely £11½ million is a sum not to be sneezed at. That is a sum which could be used in the negotiations which will be going on in the immediate future.
The British Government should, therefore, put forward to the Argentine Government the suggestion that something should be done now for the British shareholders. It does not matter two pence what happens in regard to liquidation because there never will be a penny of money. It is a question of whether we consider the shareholders somewhere in the negotiations. There is no earthly reason why they should not be considered now they should not have to wait for final liquidation, which may be a year from now or goodness knows when. I do not know whether it is necessary that an Amendment should be made to the liquidation law in the Argentine or, simply, that legal procedure should be taken in the Parliament there. I suggest that the British Government should press for whatever is necessary to happen and that they might so press in the trade negotiations which will be going on as a result of the devaluation problem of the last few weeks.
Turning for a moment to the Argentine Government, I would appeal to them from the point of view of the olden days when we really did do a lot—both Governments—to develop the Argentine. There was a great friendship between the two Governments and a feeling of dignity and respect. In these days, surely they will see that it is only wretched people over here, who are not by any means well off, who are footing the bill for the extremely cheap transport rates in Buenos Aires, whilst the impression is given all the time that such cheap travel is all due to the action of the Argentine Government.
I would point out that in the old days we were always being asked to save money to invest abroad to help international trade, which was more than useful during the war, and as one result of


this we were able to "eat" the Argentine railways following the arrangements made two years ago. We are now being asked to do everything to export, and people are beginning to wonder what will be the position when in the years to come this will be no longer necessary. Will the Government then back up the people who have made sacrifices to help the country out in its export drive? What is to happen to these people, these debenture-holders, who have made sacrifices by putting up their money to help in development when they were asked to do so? Can we be told exactly what is the position now? Is anything to be done to let the directors go out and open negotiations? Are the Foreign Office going to plead for compensation? How far will they go, and will they be prepared to be firm? Will they be willing to include this problem—I have a suspicion that they will not—in the negotiations which are to come, remembering that this sum might be up to £20 million and could be of the greatest use?

11.48 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): I have followed with great attentiveness the speech of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling), but I am not clear what course he is pressing us to adopt. We agree with his basic premise that the shareholders deserve compensation. As he said, we and our Ambassador in Buenos Aires have pressed the claims of British shareholders most vigorously on the Argentine Government. I am not clear precisely in what direction the hon. Member was hoping for progress to be made in this matter.

Mr. Teeling: By including it in any agreements that are about to be made with the Argentine Government as a result of devaluation.

Mr. Mayhew: Devaluation has, of course, brought again into negotiation questions connected with the trade agreement, but the negotiations will now be about the implementation of the trade agreement and will refer to the changes which devaluation will have made in the implementation of the agreement. The question of compensation to shareholders, and indeed the whole problem of the British Argentine Transport Corporation, forms no part of the trade

agreement, and it will not, therefore, be possible to include this matter in the coming negotiations. The hon. Member is, I think, wrong in saying that this matter was not mentioned previously in negotiations for a trade agreement. It was mentioned, as I shall show later in what I have to say. It would be inappropriate to raise it in the context of the kind of discussions that are to take place on the implementation of the Trade Agreement.
The hon. Member seems to think that the Treasury wants us to do so. Perhaps he has better contact with the Chancellor of the Exchequer than I have, but I think I speak for the Government on this matter when I say that we do not see anyway out in that direction. What other sanctions are there? What other methods does the hon. Member suggest? I was glad that he paid a tribute to our Ambassador in Buenos Aires. I think the hon. Member will agree with me that our Ambassador has most energetically pursued this question with the weapons at his disposal, and that he has played his cards as best they could be played.
It is, of course, a sorry story. The hon. Member's facts were, as far as I could see, mainly correct. This Corporation was formed in 1936, incorporating four passenger transport companies in the city. In 1939, all the assets of those four companies were transferred to the holding Corporation, and compensation in the form of shares was paid to the previous shareholders. The British shareholders received 250 million pesos, which was less than 50 per cent. of the shares of the Corporation. We had an agreement which would allow the company to earn profits of 7 per cent. on the issued share capital; in 1942 there was an agreement by which the percentage was reduced to 5 per cent; but the necessary fare increases to cover the increased cost, to which the hon. Member referred, were not authorised by the Argentine Government, and the Corporation has, in fact, made heavy losses.
One of the four companies concerned began a law suit—I think soon after the end of the war—but before that suit had been heard, the Argentine Government announced proposed legislation for the liquidation of the Corporation within 180 days. We felt that the Anglo-Argentine


Tramways Corporation had a strong case. We therefore put in our first claim to obtain restitution of capital to British investors which, we say, they put up in good faith and for which they are entitled to be compensated. On 5th October last year, we put in a first note in which we said we hoped that the Argentine Government would effect restitution and guarantee complete compensation to British investors.
No information about the plans for liquidation has been forthcoming. Therefore, in March of this year we again sent a note to the Argentine Minister for Foreign Affairs asking for a settlement out of court between the companies, on the one hand, and the Argentine Government on the other. We have sent various reminders on that matter without success. In the course of these trade negotiations to which the hon. Member referred, we obtained an assurance from the Minister of Industry and Commerce and from the Ministry of Transport that they agreed in principle to make arrangements for these direct discussions with the companies. That was in the course of these trade negotiations. Unfortunately, however, these direct negotiations have not taken place, in spite of the fact that since 5th October, when we sent the first note, His Majesty's Ambassador has taken up this and related matters with the Argentine Government on 25 separate occasions.
It is an unsatisfactory position and a sorry story, but I regret to say that, for the reasons I have given, we cannot adopt the line of policy to which the hon. Member referred. The terms of the liquidation

are not yet known. The hon. Member made some reference to the fact that the liquidation would leave the shareholders with nothing. That may or may not be the case; but when he says that we should, therefore, urge some different liquidation procedure upon the Argentine Government, he will, I think, appreciate that it is difficult for us to do that before we have seen the terms of the liquidation. In any case, I am not sure that the methods he suggested are, in fact, practicable. I am sorry to tell a discouraging story to the House, but I can assure the House that in the past we have energetically championed the rights of the British shareholders, and we shall continue so to do; the record shows that we have not been indifferent to the claims of British subjects in this matter. The boards of the companies concerned, with whom we have always been in close and direct contact, have fully appreciated the handling of this matter by the Government and by our mission in Buenos Aires.

Mr. Teeing: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he assure the House that the Government will link up the demands of the shareholders to the coming negotiations, at least as much as they were linked to the last negotiations?

Mr. Mayhew: We shall take all suitable opportunities of pressing these claims on the Argentine Government, but I cannot go farther than give that assurance.

Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.